JUDGMENT :

V.K. Tahilramani, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent bank.

2. The admitted facts are that the petitioners had obtained three separate loans from the respondent bank. Two of the loan accounts were settled, however, the third loan account was not settled. When the first petitioner approached the respondent bank to release the documents in relation to the properties mortgaged in relation to the loans which were already settled, the respondent bank, by letter dated 4.8.2017, refused to return the documents. The respondent bank refused to return the documents on the ground that the first petitioner had obtained another loan as Sole Proprietor of M/s.Babu Dresses (second petitioner) from the respondent bank and he had not repaid the said loan amount and committed default. This loan account was declared as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and, hence, the respondent bank had filed a suit for recovery before the Debts Recovery Tribunal being O.A.No.434 of 2017. In the letter dated 4.8.2017, it is further stated that since the first petitioner was liable to pay substantial amount to the bank, the bank has exercised its general lien over the properties mortgaged by the first petitioner and, hence, the bank was not in a position to release the collateral security mortgaged by the first petitioner until the closure of all loans availed by him and, hence, the request of the first petitioner was rejected. Being aggrieved by this communication dated 4.8.2017, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is an admitted fact that the earlier two loan accounts were settled and only the third loan account which is to the tune of Rs.63 lakhs was declared as Non Performing Asset (NPA). He submitted that sufficient collateral security, i.e., seven items which are stated in Schedules 'A' and 'B' to the Original Application, was furnished in relation to the third loan of Rs.63 lakhs.

4. However, the learned counsel for the respondent bank has produced valuation report of the seven items and according to the bank, the forced sale value of all the seven items would come to Rs.30 lakhs and even if the market value is considered, the market value of all the items would come to Rs.36 lakhs. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the loan amount is Rs.63 lakhs and the interest thereon which has accumulated is Rs.11 lakhs and hence, as of today, the petitioners owe Rs.74 lakhs to the bank and the security furnished by the petitioners is not enough to cover the said amount, hence, the bank has exercised its general lien over the properties mortgaged by the first petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the earlier two loan accounts were settled, the documents relating to the properties which were furnished as security for the said two loan accounts cannot be withheld by the respondent bank. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court.

6. The first decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is State Bank of India and another v. Jayanthi and others, reported in 2011 (3) MLJ 245 : 2011 (2) CTC 465. He pointed out that in the said case it was observed that the deposit of title deeds by which the mortgage was created by the deceased borrower, N.P.S.Mahendran, was for a specific purpose to cover an advance for a specific loan. When such is the situation, the borrower having deposited the documents in order to secure a specific transaction, the bank cannot contend that they could hold the documents for a balance due in a different loan account, where the said N.P.S.Mahandran is not a borrower. We have carefully perused the said decision and we find that as far as the second loan account is concerned, the deceased N.P.S.Mahendran was not a borrower. In such circumstances, it was held that the documents furnished as security in