JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to release the Original Title Deed of the property and the documents related to the mortgage with respect to the property of 04.53 Ares comprised in Resurvey No. 96/17, Block No. 57 (Old Survey No. 37/1) of Kattappana Village along with the residential building to the petitioner herein which is mortgaged with respondent No.2.

ii. Grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. (SIC)

2. Petitioner is the owner in possession of a total extent of 04.53 Ares of property comprised in Resurvey No.96/17 in Block No.57 (Old Survey No. 37/1) of Kattappana Village along with a residential building by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. The prior owner of the property was one A.Ponjayam. He had availed a loan from the 2nd respondent KSFE, in connection with a chitty subscription by mortgaging the title deed. The transfer in favour of the petitioner was subject to the said mortgage. Later the prior owner who had mortgaged the property died and repayment of the loan was defaulted. The KSFE initiated recovery steps against the property. It is the case of the petitioner that he is ready to repay the arrears. But respondents 1 and 2 are not ready to return the title deeds of the property to the petitioner without a no objection from the legal heirs of the original mortgagor. Moreover the 3rd respondent is not ready to give such a no objection. In such circumstances, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 29.07.2021, this Court passed the following order:

“Admit.

2. Standing Counsel takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Issue notice by speed post to the third respondent.

3. The petitioner purchased an item of property mortgaged by the deceased husband of the third respondent to the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited. The petitioner asserts that he is prepared to settle the liability of the mortgagor, and seeks directions to the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited to return the title deeds of the property. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 points out, on instructions, that the liability covered by the mortgage comes to Rs.41,12,408/-. It was also pointed out that the petitioner is free to liquidate the liability, invoking the one time settlement facility now available by remitting the amounts due on or before 31.8.2021. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to pass an interim order permitting the petitioner to pay the amounts payable in terms of the one time settlement for liquidating the liability under protest within the time stipulated. Ordered accordingly. In the event of the petitioner remitting the amounts, the same shall be kept in a suspense account, pending disposal of the writ petition.”

5. Admittedly the petitioner deposited the amount due to respondents 1 and 2 as directed above. Today when the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there may be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to release the original title deed of the property to the petitioner in the light of payment of the amount. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the above mentioned Ponjayam. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that even though he tried to contact the 3rd respondent, there is no instruction from her. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayers in the writ petition may be allowed. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Muhammed Sherieff K.S. v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others [2016 (2) KHC 665] and the judgment of