SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 56526

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Kavati Krishna Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The Bank of Baroda – Respondent
WP 7592/2025



THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

ORDER

Questioning the action of the respondents in not returning the original link documents relating to petitioner’s house i.e., 1) Sale deed bearing Doc.No.2024 of 1969 dated 20.11.1969 and 2) Release Deed bearing Doc.No.1080 of 2000 dated 07.09.2000 in respect of H.No.1-8-115/G admeasuring 370 square yards situated at Mecleodguda, Secunderabad, (for short ‘the subject documents of the property’) even though the petitioner had repaid the entire loan amount to the respondents bank on 29.09.2021 and not considering the representation dated 29.08.2024, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. By mortgaging the subject documents of the property, petitioner had obtained bank loan from the respondent No.2, Bank of Baroda, and effect respondent No.2 had also issued a certificate on 29.01.2025 stating that the petitioner has repaid the entire education loan amount bearing Account No.126206000003557 and no amount is due from the petitioner. It is further submitted that though the petitioner certificate to that extent inspite of repeated requests to the respondent No.2 to return all the original link documents relating to the subject property there was no response from the respondent No.2 authority. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 29.08.2024 to the respondent No.2 authority requesting them to return all the original link documents relating to the subject property but the respondent No.2 did not choose to return the same. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. As could be seen from the proceedings, though the notice has been served on the respondents there is no representation on their behalf.

4. As could be seen from the record and the submissions made in the writ affidavit, it appears that the loan obtained by the petitioner has been cleared and the loan account stood closed on 29.09.2021 and to that effect, a certificate dated 29.01.2025 issued by the Chief Manager, Marredpally Branch, Bank of Baroda, has been filed. Further, a representation dated 29.08.2024 has also been filed addressed to the respondent No.2 requesting to return the subject link documents of the property and there is a specific submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 did not act thereon.

5. In that view of the matter, apart from the above observations, keeping in view of old age 85 years of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to return the original subject link documents of the property stated to have been deposited by the petitioner for collateral purpose in respect of Account No.126206000003557, if no other dues to be recovered from the petitioner, within the period of Four (4) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

________________________________

JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 15.04.2025 LSK

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top