The court emphasized the responsibility of the second respondent to release mortgage documents for which loan amounts have been repaid by members, despite the lack of privity of contract.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the fourth respondent to return the sale deed in Document No.1612/2000, dated 21.07.2000 deposited with the fourth respondent as deposit of title deed in connection with housing loan No.9, Member No.222 with the fourth respondent by considering the representation, dated 07.09.2021 within the time limit that may be fixed by this Court.)

1. The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction to the fourth respondent, the Sivagangai Mavatta Anaithu Nagaratchi, Perooratchi, Ooratchi, Ondriya Paniyalarkal Matrum Pothu Kooturavu Veettuvasathi Sangam Limited, represented by its President to return the sale deed in Doc.No.1612/2000, dated 21.07.2000, which had been deposited by the petitioner herein with the said fourth respondent, as mortgage by deposit of title deed in connection with housing loan No.9, Member No.222, between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The petitioner had given a representation, dated 07.09.2021.

2. Heard Mr.K.Sundaravel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Shanmugavel, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mr.Kanmanai Annamalai, learned Counsel for the second respondent.

3. The petitioner and the fourth respondent had a contractual relationship. The fourth respondent had advanced housing loan. The petitioner had deposited the title document aforementioned with the fourth respondent. The housing loan advanced to the petitioner was a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. This has to be repaid by the petitioner within a period of ten years. The petitioner had also completed the construction of the house and had commenced repayment of the term loan from 01.09.2004. The petitioner had paid a total sum of Rs.1,57,990/- till 24.09.2012. The amount paid under the mortgage receipt to a sum of Rs. 3,100/- was also taken into account as repayment of the loan. Totally it is claimed that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1,61,090/-. A further sum of Rs.8,500/- was also with the fourth respondent as membership share amount. A subsidy had been announced by the Government of Tamil Nadu and on calculation, it is claimed that the petitioner is deemed to have paid a sum of Rs.51,430/- on 30.06.2011. The last payment made by the petitioner was on 24.09.2012 to a sum of Rs.29,980/-.

4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had discharged the loan. It is also an admitted fact that there was a privity of contract only between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. In order to lend money to the petitioner herein, the second respondent, Tamil Nadu Cooperative Housing Federation Limited had advanced amounts to the fourth respondent for this particular purpose. The fourth respondent had advanced loans not only to the petitioner but also to many others, who had so availed loans. The fourth respondent after receiving funds from the second respondent had forwarded the title deed deposited by the petitioner to the second respondent. The title deed of the petitioner is now in the custody of the second respondent.

5. Notice had been directed to the second respondent. The fact that the petitioner had repaid the entire loan amount is admitted by the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent. This is also admitted by the learned Counsel for the second respondent. However, it is stated that the fourth respondent owing to the funds allotted by the second respondent for sanctioning of loans not just to the petitioner but to various other individuals is still due and payable to the second respondent a sum of Rs.1,95,000/-, after taking into consideration the various subsidies. This is not the amount due and payable by the petitioner herein.

6. The second respondent has no say in the matter since there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and second respondent. So long as the second respondent retains the document of the petitioner, the second respon