AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. P. K. Bhoumik, Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhoumik, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
Heard Mr. Ray Rajat Nath, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4.
This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For a direction commanding upon the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 to hand over original
Sale Deed and other original documents of the land which were deposited with respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 by way of usufructuory mortgage towards
the loan amount to be advanced for Rs. 24 lacs and odds or in failure to provide the original Sale Deed and other papers of the land by respondents
nos.1, 2, 3 and 4, then the respondent nos.1,2 and 3, be directed to give guarantee for fetching loan by the writ petitioner from any other Bank
including respondent nos.5 and 6 and as res. 1, 2, 3 and 4 kept the documents in their custody and by which the writ petitioner is suffering and for the
purpose, the writ petitioner should be indemnified with damages which is quantified to the tune of Rs.1 crore, when the transparency of Allahabad
Bank and its officers are completely missing and in the alternative, the Hon’ble Court would be pleased to order that the certified copy of the Sale
Deed and other documents of the land in question to be treated as original.â€
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the sale-deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984 registered with Sub Registrar, Bokaro, Chas was
given to the respondent-Allahabad Bank by way of equitable mortgage. However, the petitioner, after he cleared the entire dues of the Bank, prayed
for return of the original deed which was not returned to the petitioner inspite of repeated request.
Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that some amount of loan was sanctioned in his favour by United Bank of India as back as in the
year, 2010 subject to mortgage of the aforesaid property. As the original title deed being saledeed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984 was not with the
petitioner, they could not mortgage it with the United Bank of India. He submits that vide letter dated 03.03.2011 the petitioner requested the
respondent- Allahabad Bank to return the original documents being sale-deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984 and when Allahabad Bank did not respond, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Counsel for the respondent-Allahabad Bank submits that they have filed a counter-affidavit in this case and by referring to the counter affidavit , he
submits that the loan was closed as back as on 16.02.2005 and the petitioner never approached the respondent- Allahabad Bank for taking back his
original documents and when the petitioner approached the Bank on 03.03.2011, the respondent- Allahabad Bank was not in a position to trace out the
original sale-deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984 and accordingly, the respondent- Allahabad Bank is not in a position to return the original sale-deed no.
450 dated 30.01.1984 to the petitioner.
Counsel for the respondent-Allahabad Bank also refers to the Circular of the bank dated 01.07.2014 wherein it has been mentioned that in the event
of loss of title deeds of mortgaged property at the hands of the banks, the compensation will be payable to the extent of Rs.1,000/- plus out of pocket
expenses for obtaining duplicate documents.
Counsel for the respondent- Allahabad Bank also submits that the Bank had already informed the petitioner vide letter dated 19.07.2011 that the
document relating to his account has been lost.
After considering the arguments advanced by the authorities and after going through the materials on record, it appears to be an admitted fact that
the petitioner had mortgaged his property being covered under sale-deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984 and handed over the same to the respondent-
Allahabad Bank by way of equitable mortgage in connection with the account namely, Displaced Transport Company. The said loan account was
closed as back as on 16.02.2005 and the petitioner having approached the Bank only in the year, 2011, the respondent- Bank had expressed its inability
to return the sale-deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984 to the petitioner by saying that they are not in a position to hand over the original document as the
same has been lost at the hands of the Respondent Bank.
This Court is of the considered view that the title documents i.e. the original sale-deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984 is a valuable document and once it
is lost the respondent- Allahabad Bank cannot escape from its liability and responsibility by referring to the Circular dated 01.07.2014 by saying that in
the event of loss of title deed, the Bank is liable to pay compensation only to the extent of Rs.1, 000/- plus out of pocket expenses for obtaining
duplicate documents. This court is of the considered view that the compensation policy of the Bank to the extent it relates to compensation payable in
case of loss of original title deed by the Respondent Bank as contained in circular dated 07.01.2014 is neither sufficient nor has any statutory force
and is not binding upon the petitioner and the petitioner is required to be protected and compensated in case the lost original sale deed is misused.
Considering the fact that the original sale-deed has been misplaced by the respondent- Allahabad Bank, the respondent â€" Bank has to bear some
responsibility so that the rights of the petitioner is protected and the petitioner is compensated in case the lost original sale deed is misused. The original
documents which have been misplaced by the respondent- Allahabad Bank can be misused by any person. In such circumstances, the Bank ought to
have filed First Information Report to the police in connection with loss of document and ought to have given a news paper publication regarding the
loss of the title- deed and thereafter, the Bank ought to have taken out the certified copy of the sale-deed and handed it over to the petitioner
alongwith the certified copy of the First Information Report as well as a the newspaper publication regarding loss of the original saledeed no. 450
dated 30.01.1984.
Considering the fact that original documents have been lost, the petitioner has no option but to take the certified copy alongwith the connected
documents so that the same can be used by the petitioner in accordance with law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent- Allahabad Bank is directed to complete the aforesaid procedure and hand
over the certified copy of the sale-deed to the petitioner with an undertaking that if the lost document is misutilized by any person, the Bank would
compensate the petitioner for any loss which may be incurred by the petitioner on account of misuse of original sale-deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984.
The respondent- Allahabad Bank is directed to do the needful within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.