Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. MALA, J
M.Umpathy – Appellant
Versus
The General Manager (Incharge), George Town Co-operative Bank – Respondent
WP.No.19880 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.M.Baskaran
For the Respondents: M/s.S.Ravi, Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi
A bank must release a title deed to legal heirs after loan obligations are met, despite a missing heir, provided other legal heirs consent.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Issued to quash the letter from the bank refusing to release the title deed after loan repayment was made by the petitioner's family - The bank's refusal was based solely on the interest of a missing legal heir despite no objection from the other heirs. (Paras 1, 3, 9)
(B) Legal Heirs - Rights of legal heirs - The petitioner and his family settled the loan in full and were entitled to the return of the title deed, supporting documents were submitted showing the legal heirs’ consent. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, grandson of Nagammal, sought the release of the title deed mortgaged for a loan post-settlement of the payment including an amicable settlement with other heirs, which was unjustly denied by the bank citing the missing heir's interest.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the bank to return the original documents to the petitioner within eight weeks as the legal heirs collectively consented and settled dues, addressing the missing heir’s situation appropriately.
Issues: Whether the bank's refusal to release the title deed was arbitrary and unjust after loan settlement and submission of documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the refusal illegal; all legal heirs consented, and it emphasized that the loan was repaid, obligating the bank to release the mortgaged document once conditions were satisfied.
Result: Writ petition stands disposed of with directions to release the original title deed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court addressed the bank's refusal to release the title deed. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. details of loan repayment and heirs' rights were provided. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court evaluated necessity and legality of the bank's actions. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. court issued directive for the release of the title deed. (Para 9) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.08.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE N. MALA WP.No.19880 of 2016 M.Umpathy, Petitioner Vs
1.The General Manager (Incharge), George Town Co-operative Bank, No.2/62, Krishnappa Agraharam Street, Chennai-79.
2.The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, M.V.Natarajan Maaligai, No.170, Periyar E.V.R.Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10. 3.Tmt.M.Kuppammal, 4.Tmt.S.Rathika, 5.M.Rajesh, 6.M.Durai Babu, 7.M.Perumal, (Since Missing), S/o.K.Munuswamy.
8.Mr.Dilli Babu, 9.Tmt.Sundari, W/o.Late Mr.Ramu, No.293, P.B.Garden, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029.
(R3 to R9 are impleaded as per order dated
28.03.2025 in WMP.No.10776 of 2017 in W.P.No.19880 of 2016) ...Respondent(s) P RAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the letter of the first respondent dated 22.04.2016, quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent herein to release the title deed of the petitioner's grandmother Tmt.Nagammal which is mortgaged under loan A/c No.9510 of the respondents and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner(s): M/s.M.Baskaran For Respondent(s): M/s.S.Ravi for R1 Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi, Additional Government Pleader for R2
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the letter of the first respondent dated 22.04.2016, quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent herein to release the title deed of the petitioner's grandmother Tmt.Nagammal which is mortgaged under loan A/c No.9510 of the respondents.
2. The petitioner is the grandson of Tmt. Nagammal, who owned a house property at Door No.94 (Old No.58), Market Lane, Santha Narayanan Koil Street, Kalmandapam, Royapuram, Chennai – 13, measuring about 400 sq.ft. During her lifetime, Nagammal had mortgaged the property and availed a loan under A/c No.9510 from the respondent bank. After her death on 05.07.2006, her legal heirs were Mr. Perumal, Mrs. R. Sundari, and Mr. M. Mohan (the petitioner’s father). Mr. Mohan passed away on 09.11.2010, and Mr. Perumal went missing in 2011 (FIR No. 747/2011 dated 11.06.2011). The petitioner and his family settled the entire loan amount and also paid Rs.5 lakhs as amicable settlement to Dillibabu (Perumal’s son) and Tmt. Sundari, who thereafter gave their no objection for releasing the title deed. Despite submitting all supporting documents and offering to execute an indemnity bond, the bank refused to release the title deed, citing the need to protect the interest of the missing legal heir. The petitioner’s request was formally rejected by letter dated 22.04.2016.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the refusal to release the title deed despite full loan repayment, submission of legal heir certificates, FIR copy, no objection letters from surviving legal heirs, and willingness to provide an indemnity bond is arbitrary and unjust. He argues that the interests of all heirs, including that of the missing Mr. Perumal, have been sufficiently addressed, especially since his son Dillibabu has given no objection. He asserts that the impugned order dated 22.04.2016 is illegal and contrary to law and seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the same and direct the respondent to release the original title deed of the mortgaged property.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the loan borrowed by Nagammal, grandmother of the petitioner, who passed away, leaving behind three legal heirs -the petitioner's father, his
