IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18621 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA ==========================================================

==========================================================

DAVE CHETNABEN SANATKUMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR RASESH H PARIKH(3862) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KRUTIK PARIK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 2 MS VYOMA K JHAVERI(6386) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 09/11/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Rasesh H. Parikh for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Krutik Parikh for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned advocate Ms. Vyoma K. Jhaveri for respondent No.3.

2.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a relief to direct the respondent No.3-Chanasma Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. to hand over the original title deed of the mortgaged property for Loan Account No. 35 to the petitioner and to execute the release deed so as to cancel the encumbrances created over the said property.

3.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was a member of respondent No.3-Bank, obtained a loan for purchase of a residential house in the year 2006 amounting to Rs. 15 lakh. The petitioner, who is joint owner of the property situated at D/302, Status Tower, Drive-in-road, Thaltej, mortgaged the same as a security for the loan sanctioned by the respondent No.3-Bank.

4.The petitioner thereafter regularly paid all the installments and fully paid the said loan on 31.01.2013.

5.It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the payment of full amount of the outstanding loan, the respondent-Bank did not return the original title-deed deposited by the petitioner nor executed the release deed canceling the equitable mortgage so as to make the property free from any encumbrances. The petitioner therefore, by letter dated 02.02.2013 followed by letter dated 01.04.2013 requested the respondent No.3-Bank as well as the respondent No.4-Reserve Bank of India making a grievances for returning of the title-deed by the respondent No.3-Bank.

6.Thereafter, the petitioner again by letter dated 19.02.2014 requested the respondent No.3 to return the original title-deed of the property as well as cancel the encumbrance created on the said property.

7.Respondent No.3-Bank on 20.03.2014 informed respondent No.4-Reserve Bank of India that the husband of the petitioner was a General Manager with the respondent No.3-Bank and he had obtained a staff loan of Rs. 3,40,000/- and the account of the staff loan had become NPA due to non-payment of the outstanding dues. It was further pointed out by respondent No.3-Bank that the husband of the petitioner was dismissed by the Bank after payment of gratuity, provident fund etc. It was the contention of the respondent No.3 that as there was outstanding dues of the staff loan of the husband of the petitioner and as he was the joint owner of the mortgaged property, respondent no.3-Bank is not liable to return the title deed as the same is retained as security. It was also pointed out in the said letter that due to action of the husband of the petitioner to invest the fund of the Bank in SLR bond contrary to the rules, the Bank suffered a loss of Rs. 1.33 crore and the Reserve Bank of India has also imposed penalty and thereafter, police complaint was also filed.

8.The petiti