O R D E R

Writ Petition has been filed directing the respondent bank to release the sale deed dated 24.01.1992 registered as Document No.445 of 1992, on the file of SRO, Gandhipuram, Ccoimbatore Taluk, measuring an extent of 2380 sq.ft given as security of education loan under account no.3099407180, within a reasonable time.

2. It is the case of the Writ petitioner that she is the co-owner of the property situated at Plot No.73, along with one Geetha Sundaresh. The petitioners' daughter Sathya Srit has availed Rs.11.90,000/- education loan for the purpose of pursuing M.S.Degree in Health and Science management in the year 2010. At the time of availing the loan the petitioner stood as guarantor and executed a mortgage in respect of her property. Thereafter as there was some default in payment of loan SARFAESI proceedings has been initiated. Thereafter, the petitioner has paid the entire amount towards education loan and the loan account has been closed. After payment of the entire education loan while the petitioner sought for return of sale deed which is subject matter of the equitable mortgage, the bank has refused to return the same. It is also stated by the bank that property was not given for security for any other loan sanctioned to the petitioner. However, the bank has failed to return the document. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. In the counter, a stand has been taken by the bank admitting that at the time of availing the education loan for her daughter the petitioner furnished the property jointly held with one Geetha Sundaresh as security by way of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. As the borrower and guarantor failed to repay the loan and the accounts became NPA, proceedings were initiated under SARFAESI Act. However, dues under the said educational loan was settled and the account was closed. It is the stand of the bank that petitioner is the propreitrix of M/s. Bhavani Industries availed various credit facilities for her steel fabrication plant from the bank. The loans originally availed on 21.08.2008 were periodically renewed with enhancements and fresh limits. The loans were also restructured on 24.01.2014. However, the petitioner did not repay the dues to the tune of Rs.72,88,815/-. Therefore, the respondent filed O.A.No.354 of 2015 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal. Hence, it is the contention that as the petitioner has not cleared her loan account the bank exercised its general lien over the said property towards the dues in M/s. Bhavani Industries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is neither a borrower in the educational loan she only stood as a guarantor as soon as the entire amount has been cleared, the bank cannot exercise general lien since the property has not been mortgaged in respect of her loan relating to the propreitrix concern. As a matter of right, the bank cannot exercise general lien further once the mortgage amount has been paid it is the duty of the mortgagee to return all the document as per the substantive provision of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the bank cannot withhold the documents. Admittedly, the documents not only belong to the petitioner but also third party interest is involved. In support of his submissions, he also placed reliance in the judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, 2017-2-Writ.L.R 584, in the case of M.Shanthi vs. Bank of Baroda and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syndicate Bank vs.

Vijaya Kumar, 1992 (2) SCC 331.

5. It is the contention of the learned standing counsel for the bank as the petitioner has also availed loan for her propreitrix concern, as per Sec.171 of the Indian Contract Act, the bank can exercise general lien for the amounts not paid. Accordingly, the bank has rightly exercised the general lien and petitioner cannot seek return of documents. In support of her submissions, she also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.R.Ramachary & Others vs.Indian