The court determined that upon clearing a chit subscription, documents mortgaged as security must be returned, barring those relating to ongoing liabilities.

J U D G M E N T

The 1^st petitioner is a subscriber of various chits from the 1^st respondent herein. As regards the chits subscribed by him as above and advances received, he had offered guarantees in the form of landed properties by mortgaging the title deeds. The 2^nd petitioner had independently obtained certain credit facilities in chits subscribed from the 1^st respondent herein, and with respect to the said facilities, the 1^st petitioner was the guarantor. With reference to the credit facilities obtained by the 2^nd petitioner as above, the 1^st petitioner had offered certain properties owned by him as security. The documents with reference to the afore properties were also deposited with the 1^st respondent herein. The petitioners state that the chit subscribed by the 2^nd petitioner – Chit No. RCL 1143 – having been fully paid off and discharged, the documents offered as security for the afore credit facility require to be returned to him. When such a prayer was made, the 1^st respondent herein refused to return the documents, stating that the 1^st petitioner has various other liabilities payable to the 1^st respondent herein. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to return the documents other than document Nos.

512 of 2008 and 1419 of 2011.

2. Heard Sri.B.Ananthu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri.Arun Antony, the learned counsel for the

1^st respondent herein.

3. Sri.Arun Antony, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, would submit that even if the afore two documents are returned, the 1^st petitioner would not be in a position to utilise the same, since the 1^st respondent has already initiated revenue recovery proceedings against all the properties, including the properties covered by the documents sought to be returned by the 1^st petitioner through the 2^nd respondent herein and, therefore, there would be a charge on the entire properties with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act , 1968. He would further add that the total liability of the 1^st petitioner would be in excess of Rs.60 lakhs.

4. Even on the face of the afore submission, I am of the opinion that if the petitioners have mortgaged only document Nos.512 of 2008 and 1419 of 2011 for the subsisting arrears, the other documents require to be returned to the 1^st petitioner. This is especially so when the other documents have been offered as security with reference to the credit facilities obtained by the 2^nd petitioner, which is already been cleared, as seen from Ext.P1.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition would stand disposed of as under;

i) There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to return the documents of the petitioners deposited with it, other than document Nos.512 of 2008 and

1419 of 2011.

ii) Needless to say that if any proceedings have been initiated by the 1^st respondent against the properties covered by the documents that are directed to be returned to the 1^st petitioner, through the 2^nd respondent, and if any attachment has been effected/

lien recorded on the properties, that will continue.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE anm APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 40703 OF 2023 PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE ORDER IN CHIT BEARING NO: RCL-1143/2011 DATED 31/01/2022 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF/SENIOR MANAGER OF KSFE.