IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-06-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH WP No. 6726 of 2024 WMP No. 30239 of 2024 S.Ajitha Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The General Manager, Indian Bank, No.254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

2.The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, George Town Branch, No.321, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-600 001.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, direction to the 2nd respondent to release the sale deed dated 29.04.1999 registered as Doc. No.2035/1999 on the file of SRO- Kundrathur, Kanchipuram District, deposited with the respondent bank as guarantor, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.E.Ekambaram For Respondent(s): Mr. P.V.Murlidhar for R1 M/s.Aiyar & Dolia for R2

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to release the Sale Deed dated 29.04.1999 registered as Document No.2035 of 1999, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

2.The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the subject property by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 29.04.1999 registered as Document No.2035 of 1999. The petitioner obtained a loan from the 2nd respondent and executed a mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 09.11.2012 which was registered as Document No.13357 of 2012. This loan amount was repaid by the petitioner on 20.07.2016. As a result, the mortgage was cancelled through a registered Document No.11296 of 2016.

3.The petitioner thereafter stood as a guarantor for two other loans that were availed by M/s.Y.R.S. Garments and M/s.Mani Enterprises. Even here, the petitioner had mortgaged by deposit of title deeds. Both these loan amounts were settled. In view of the same, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent to release the original Sale Deed which was given as a guarantee. The 2nd respondent through communication dated 21.12.2023 informed the petitioner as to why the Sale Deed cannot be released. Even thereafter, representation was made and it did not evoke any response. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition came to be been filed before this Court.

4.The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner stood as a guarantor for M/s.Maran Garments and as on today, the borrower owes a sum of Rs.5.89 Crores. Hence, the bank has exercised its general lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. An original application was also filed against the proprietor of M/s.Maran Garments for recovery of this amount and application has been filed for attachment of the property belonging to the petitioner. In view of the same, the respondents have sought for the dismissal of this writ petition.

5.Heard Dr.S.S.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.P.V.Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent and M/s.Aiyar & Dolia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

2nd respondent.

6.The short issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the respondent Bank can exercise general lien under Section

171 of the Indian Contract Act for the loan taken by M/s.Maran Garments. 7.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner initially availed a loan for which the petitioner executed a mortgage by deposit of title deeds and this loan amount was repaid back. Likewise, for two other loans, the petitioner stood as a guarantor and created mortgage by deposit of title deeds for those two loans also. Those two loans also were repaid back. However, the original Sale Deed continued to be in possession of the respondent Bank and they sought to exercise a right of general lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act on the ground that the loan that was advanced to M/s.Maran Garments which is being run