Upon full discharge of a mortgaged debt, the secured creditor is obligated to release the original title deeds to the parties entitled thereto, even if the documents are held within the custody of a Debt Recovery Tribunal.

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

…....................................

…....................................................... Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2026 JUDGMENT The main prayer sought for in this original petition is to issue an appropriate order directing respondents 1 and 2 to take out the securities deposited by respondents 3 and 4, including document No. 3501/2005 and 3502/2005 of SRO Kattappana along with other documents relating to the same from Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam which were produced by them in OA No.114 of 2008 (T.A.No.26/2021) and release the same to the petitioners in the light of Exts.P1 and P2 coupled with Ext.P3.

2. Respondents 3 and 4 had availed a loan from the State Bank of Travancore, Udayamkulangara Branch by mortgaging two items of property having an extent of 2 Hectares 48 Ares 6 Sq. Meters in Anakkara Village, covered by document Nos.3501 and 3502 of 2005 of SRO Kattappana. When a default occurred, the bank filed OA No.114 of 2008 which culminated in a final judgment and issuance of a recovery certificate. In the meantime, the property owners contacted the petitioners and the petitioners purchased the secured asset as per Exts.P1 and P2 documents. Thereafter, the petitioners negotiated with the bank and settled their dues, for which Ext.P3 closure certificate was issued. Thereafter, the petitioners sought for return of the original title deeds with the bank, but respondents 1 and 2 failed to hand over the same to the petitioners, doubting their entitlement for the same. In such circumstances, the petitioners filed MA No.90 of 2025 in TA No.26 of 2021 (O.A.No.114/2008) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam and the tribunal after hearing both sides, passed Ext.P9 order. As per Ext.P9 order, the petitioners were granted liberty to approach the bank for return of the documents and the bank was directed to obtain the documents from the tribunal and hand them over the same to the petitioners, if they have no objections. It is the grievance of the petitioners that even thereafter, respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any steps to handover the title deeds to the petitioners. It is hence the petitioners filed this original petition seeking the afore relief.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. There is no representation for 3^rd and 4^th respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in the original petition and submitted that an order may be issued directing respondents 1 and 2 to get the title deeds from DRT and hand over the same to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the bank has received the entire dues in the loan account and it has no objections in handing over the original title deeds, which are now before the tribunal, to the petitioners. 6. In the light of the submissions made at the Bar and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, including the fact that there is no objection from the side of respondents 3 and 4, I am of the view that there is no impediment in granting the relief as sought for, by the petitioners.

In such circumstances, this original petition is disposed of as follows:

1. There shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam, seeking return of the original title deeds which has been offered as security by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

2. On receipt of such application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam shall return the original title deeds to the 2^nd respondent within a period of two weeks thereafter;

3. After reciept of the title documents by the 2^nd respondent, the same shall