A bank is entitled to retain title documents of a mortgaged property if the property has been pledged as security for other unsatisfied liabilities, especially when there are subsisting, unchallenged arbitration awards permitting recovery against that property.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this court alleging that the documents pertaining to certain property mortgaged by the petitioner for obtaining a housing loan (Housing Loan No. NAMT 6467) from the first respondent bank have not been returned, although the loan has been fully settled.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the Bank has no right to retain the documents, when it is not disputed that the housing loan in question has been fully settled. The learned counsel submits on the authority of PNB Vesper Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and Others, (2023) 3 KLT 594, that the Bank is to be directed to return the documents. It is submitted that the aforesaid decision has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the petitioner was also a surety for two chitty transactions and had consented that the mortgaged property, which belongs to the petitioner, her daughter, and her daughter-in-law jointly, shall be kept as security in respect of the liability under the chitty transactions. It is submitted that the chitties were availed by none other than the daughter of the petitioner, who is also a co-owner of the property. It is submitted that, in respect of the chitty transactions, proceedings were initiated by the bank under the provisions of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and two awards, including Exhibit R1(c) Award, were obtained. It is submitted that the petitioner was a party to the arbitration proceedings. It is submitted that these awards clearly indicate that the amount due under the chitty transactions can be recovered from the petitioner, who was respondent No.2 in the arbitration proceedings, as also from the other respondents, who are the daughter and daughter-in-law of the petitioner. It is submitted that, without challenging these awards, which also permits the bank to recover the liability by proceeding against the immovable property belonging jointly to the petitioner, her daughter, and her daughter-in- law, the petitioner cannot seek the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent bank, I am of the opinion that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent bank that the petitioner cannot be granted the reliefs sought for in the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the documents in relation to the property, which was mortgaged for securing the repayment of the housing loan, are not being returned by the 1^st respondent bank despite the fact that the housing loan has been repaid in full. A perusal of Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b) documents would clearly indicate that there is yet another transaction where the property jointly belonging to the petitioner, her daughter, and daughter-in-law was kept as security. Exhibit R1(c) Award clearly indicates that the bank is entitled to proceed against the property for recovery of the amounts due under the Award. There is yet another award on the same lines in respect of another transaction with the bank. The petitioner has no case that these awards have been challenged in any manner or that the liability determined in terms of these awards has been paid in full. In such circumstances, the petitioner is clearly not entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the Awards, in accordance with the law, if so advised.