Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2664
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, JJ.
M/s. Jyothi Laboratories Ltd. - Petitioner
Vs.
Indian Overseas Bank, (SSI North Branch) - Respondent
W.P.No.15902 of 2017
Decided On : 14-07-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Praveen Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. F. Benjamin George.
The central legal point established is the court's authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the bank to retrieve and return the original sale deed to the petitioner.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Property Dispute - Debts Recovery - S.190, Sembulivaram Village - Sale Deed 27.07.1956, Doc.No.2950 - Summary: The court discussed the negligent manner in which the bank obtained a mortgage, the lack of charge over the property, and the failure to return the original title deed to the petitioner. The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the bank to retrieve and hand over the original sale deed to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to retrieve the original sale deed for a property purchased in 1997, as it was not handed over at the time of purchase. The property was subject to a dispute and a debt recovery tribunal case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank had acted negligently in obtaining the mortgage and had no charge over the property. The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the bank to retrieve and hand over the original sale deed to the petitioner.
Issues: Dispute over original sale deed, negligent mortgage by the bank, failure to return the document to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bank's negligent mortgage and lack of charge over the property warranted the issuance of a writ of mandamus to retrieve and return the original sale deed to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 to be paid to the petitioner by the bank.
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
1. M/s. Jyothi Laboratories Limited, Chennai, has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the Indian Overseas Bank, Kilpauk, Chennai the 1st respondent, to hand over the original sale deed dated 27.07.1956, vide Doc.No.2950 of 1956, marked as Ex.A15 in O.A.No.42 of 2007 dated 18.06.2010 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Chennai.
2. Facts deduced from the supporting affidavit and the material on record are that property measuring 89 cents comprised in S.No.190, Sembulivaram Village, No.115, Ponneri Taluk, Chengalpattu, MGR District, originally belonged to Mannarammal. The petitioner has purchased the property, vide sale deed dated 13.06.1997, registered as Document No.2997 of 1997, in the office of the Sub Registrar, Redhills. At the time of purchase, the original document was not handed over to the writ petitioner. When enquired, the petitioner was informed by the vendor Mannarammal that the same had been given to the Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, Saidapet, which was not returned.
3. Subsequently, when the petitioner wanted to put up a factory, one Mr. Bawarlal Gothi, Son of Lalchand Gothi and Mr. M. Chandran, obstructed to the same. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.147 1998 for declaration and injunction before the learned District Munsif, Ponneri. In the said suit, Mr. Bawarlal Gothi, contended that he had purchased the property from one K.G. Narasimhan, son of Mannarammal and vendor of the writ petitioner. After contest, the suit was decreed in favour of the writ petitioner.
4. While the matter stood thus, the writ petitioner received a notice from the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Chennai, in O.A.No.27 of 2005 filed by Indian Overseas Bank, for recovery of Rs.29,03,809/- from India Metal Enterprises, the 1st respondent therein, and others. In O.A.No.27 of 2005, the writ petitioner has been arrayed as the 9th defendant. Before the tribunal, in O.A.No.27 of 2005, the writ petitioner has entered appearance and filed counter. O.A.No.27 of 2005 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai has been transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, and renumbered as O.A.No.42 of 2007.
5. Indian Overseas Bank has contended that K.G. Narasimhan and his son K. Vasu, 2nd defendant in the OA, were partners of India Metal Enterprises and that they have obtained a Term Loan and Supply Bill Purchase Facility and the bank, vide letter dated 15.5.2000, sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.14 Lakhs and Supply Bills Purchase Facility of Rs.4 Lakhs and that on 04.07.2000, the 1st defendant therein, availed the same. As the borrower and guarantor, had defaulted in repayment, Indian Overseas Bank has filed O.A.No.27 of 2005, for recovery of the above said sum.
6. In O.A.No.27 of 2005, the writ petitioner has further contended that the property purchased by them under sale deed dated 13.06.1997, registered as document No.2977 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Redhills, has been shown as 'A' Schedule property in O.A.No.27 of 2005.The petitioner has further contended that K.G. Narasimhan has forged the death and legal heir certificate of Mannarammal, the vendor and mortgaged the above said property. Equitable mortgage of the said property, has been created in the year 2000.Whereas, it has already been sold in the year 1997 by Mannarammal, vendor of the petitioner. K.G. Narasimhan said to have availed loan also died, prior to filing of O.A.No.27 of 2005.Legal representatives of K.G. Narasimhan, son of Mannarammal, arrayed, as defendants 2 to 7 have failed to contest the OA. Defendant No.8 / guarantor also did not contest. All the above, were set ex parte.
7. In the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has further contended that after considering the entire material on record, the Debts Recovery Tribunal No.-III, Chennai, vide order dated 18.06.2010, has categorically found that K.G. Narasimhan, son of Mannarammal, had forged/fabricated the documents, more particularly, death and l
