A legal heir's consent is necessary for the discharge of mortgage documents when other loans are outstanding against shared collateral.

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Writ Petition No.21592 of 2025 Mr.Dayalan Rajes …. Petitioner .Vs.

1.The Assistant General Manager Canara Bank, Salem.

2.The Branch Manager Canara Bank Yercaud. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to discharge the mortgage bearing Doc.No.459/16and 460/16 SRO Yercaud and release the documents contained therein.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramesh for Mr.R.Ashwanth For Respondents : Mr.R.Sreedhar Standing Counsel ORDER This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to discharge the mortgage loan and to release the documents.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he and his wife late Hema Dayalan approached the 2nd respondent bank for loan. The same was sanctioned. The petitioner and his wife mortgaged their joint property by memorandum of deposit of title deeds. The same was registered as Document Nos.459 of 2016 and 460 of 2016. In Schedule-I, they had enclosed 63 documents in each MODT which includes registered sale deed, settlement deed, orders passed by Civil Courts etc.

3.The further case of the petitioner is that the loan that was taken by the petitioner and his wife have been cleared and this fact has been admitted by the respondents in the year 2022 itself. However, the documents were not released. In view of the same, the petitioner made a representation for release of documents. Since the same was not acted upon, the present writ petition was filed before this Court.

4.The respondent bank has filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

5. I submit that the writ petitioner, his wife Mrs. Hema Dayalan and his son Mr.Shiv Dayalan had availed the financial facilities to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty Lakhs), 27,00,000/- (Rupees thirty Lakhs) and 28,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) respectively and offered their family property as collateral in order to secure the loan. The aforesaid persons had deposited the documents relating to the title in favour of the Bank with respect to their respective properties which was mentioned in the schedule of the MODT. The writ Petitioner Mr. Dayalan Rajes had mortgaged the property having extent of 18.98 hectares or 46.88 acres vide Memorandum of Deposit of title Deeds No.459/2016 and his wife Mrs. Hema Dayalan had mortgaged the property having extent of 15.51 hectares or 39.31 acres vide Memorandum of Deposit of title Deeds No.460/2016 in favour of the Respondent bank respectively. Similarly, their son Mr. Shiv Dayalan has mortgaged the property having extent of extent of 20.32 hectares or 50.19 acres vide Memorandum of Deposit of title Deeds No.459/2016. Thus, the aforesaid persons have deposited the common documents relating to the property vide separate Memorandum of Deposit of title Deeds. The documents deposited by them are certified copies and photostat copies. They have deposited some of the original revenue records such as Patta, VAO certificates etc, because they had traced their title through the court decree and through some Deed of of family arrangement. Furthermore, the petitioner is also very much aware of the fact that they all have deposited the documents referred in Serial No.1 to 63 in all the three MOD's. Not even a single document is changed and the property is also carved out of a larger extent in different survey nos.

6. I submit that it is true that the loan availed by the Writ petitioner and his wife Mrs. Hema Dayalan are fully paid. The bank is not disputing the said facts and they are also willing to execute the Discharge receipt for the e