Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice D. KRISHNAKUMAR,Honourable Mr Justice R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Karthigesu. T – Appellant
Versus
The Authorized Officer – Respondent
WP(MD)/29214/2022
A guarantor is entitled to the same rights and remedies as the principal debtor, including the right to redeem the mortgaged property upon payment of the outstanding loan amount.
Headnote:
GUARANTOR - POSSESSION NOTICE - QUASHING - SUMMARYThe court quashed the possession notice issued by the bank to the guarantor, directing the bank to return the original title documents to the guarantor upon payment of the entire outstanding amount, including interest and costs, and withdrawal of the suit filed by the guarantor.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a guarantor for a loan taken by the second respondent from the first respondent bank, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the possession notice issued by the bank. The petitioner argued that he was willing to settle the entire outstanding due amount, including interest, and requested the bank to return the title deed of his property, which was mortgaged as security for the loan.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the bank to return the original title documents to the petitioner forthwith, on payment of the entire outstanding amount, including interest and costs, and withdrawal of the suit filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the order. The court also clarified that if the petitioner failed to pay the entire outstanding amount, the bank was at liberty to proceed further, in accordance with law, for recovery of the outstanding amount.
Issues: Whether the guarantor is entitled to quash the possession notice issued by the bank and seek return of the title deed upon payment of the outstanding loan amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that a guarantor is entitled to the same rights and remedies as the principal debtor, including the right to redeem the mortgaged property upon payment of the outstanding loan amount.
Final Decision: The court quashed the possession notice issued by the bank and directed the bank to return the original title documents to the petitioner upon payment of the entire outstanding amount, including interest and costs, and withdrawal of the suit filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the order.
W.P(MD)No.29214 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.29214 of 2022
and W.M.P(MD)No.23149 of 2022
T.Karthigesu
... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Authorized Officer,
Karur Vysya Bank,
Madurai Mattuthavani Branch,
R.S.No.170/9, Uthankudi Village,
Near Mattuthavani Bus Stand,
Madurai – 625 107.
2.K.Muthukumar
... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned possession notice, dated 19.09.2022 on
the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and
consequently directing the first respondent to deliver the title deeds and
documents pertaining to the petitioner's dwelling house in Door No.5/1,
Eastern side portion of Plot No.5 in R.S.No.254/5, Palanganatham,
Madakulam Village, Madurai to the petitioner upon full and final settlement
of the loan.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.29214 of 2022
For Petitioner
: Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For R – 1
: Mr.R.Pandivel
Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for
issuance of a Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned
possession notice, dated 19.09.2022 issued by the first respondent and
consequently, directing the first respondent to deliver the title deeds and
documents pertaining to the petitioner's dwelling house in Door No.5/1,
Eastern side portion of Plot No.5 in R.S.No.254/5, Palanganatham,
Madakulam Village, Madurai to the petitioner upon full and final settlement
of the loan.
2.According to the petitioner, he is the guarantor and the second
respondent is the borrower. In the year 2020, the second respondent
availed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as a loan from the first respondent Bank by
way of overdraft and the petitioner stood as guarantor by mortgaging his
dwelling house in the above mentioned address. Since the second
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.29214 of 2022
respondent failed to repay the loan amount, the first respondent issued a
demand notice to the petitioner and the second respondent to repay the
entire dues. After issuance of the demand notice, the second respondent did
not repay the loan amount. Hence, the petitioner approached the first
respondent with a request to hand over the title deed of the petitioner's on
payment of the second respondent's loan amount. Without considering the
same, the first respondent issued the possession notice, dated 19.09.2022.
Challenging the said possession notice, the petitioner, as a guarantor, has
filed the present Writ Petition.
3.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a guarantor
is ready to settle the entire outstanding due amount including interests to
the first respondent Bank within a period of two months. On such payment
being made by the petitioner, the first respondent Bank shall consider his
request for the return of the original title deed to the petitioner/guarantor.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner has also agreed to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.89 of 2022
pending on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai.
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.29214 of 2022
4.The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent
Bank submitted that if the petitioner has settled the entire outstanding due
amount including interest and costs within a period of two months and if the
petitioner also withdraw the suit in O.S.No.89 of 2022 pending on the file of
the learned Principal District Muns
