Monikutty Antony vs Joint Registrar of Co-Op Societies (General), Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), The Alathur Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vadakkenchery Branch and Velayudhan

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner purchased 7.50 acres of land from the 4th respondent as per Ext. P1 sale deed dated 30.04.2004. In the sale deed itself it was specifically noticed that the property was mortgaged to the 3rd respondent Bank and that there were dues remaining to be satisfied in the loan account, the security for which the land was mortgaged. It was a specific clause in the sale deed that the petitioner would satisfy the entire sale consideration. The petitioner hence satisfied the loan amount as is evidenced by Exts. P3 to P5. The loan stands entirely satisfied as is admitted by the 3rd respondent. When the petitioner sought for return of the title deeds, by Ext. P6 the same was declined on the ground that the legal opinion is otherwise. The petitioner hence filed a representation before the Joint Registrar on consideration of which Ext. P8 communication was issued. In Ext. P8 communication also it was specified that on consent being given by the 4th respondent, the title deeds could be released by the 3rd respondent. However, the respondent Bank refused to hand over the title deeds only on the ground that the 4th respondent is refusing to give consent for such handing over. Before this Court also, the 3rd respondent takes such a contention. On the last posting date when the matter was heard elaborately, since a dispute was raised by the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent was directed to file counter affidavit mentioning the exact dispute between the parties so as to understand whether the matter has to be relegated to an appropriate Civil forum.

The Power of Attorney Holder of the 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit admitting Ext. P1 sale deed and also admitting that the entire liability towards the 3rd respondent was to be wiped out by the petitioner. However, the contention of the 4th respondent is that, nowhere in the sale deed there is an undertaking to release the original title deeds to the petitioner. It is also contended that the 4th respondent needs the original title deed to be produced in a Suit filed against the Government for damages. At the outset it is to be noticed that the loan outstanding with the 3rd respondent was specifically noticed in the sale deed and the liability was willingly taken over by the vendee and it was on such condition that conveyance was effected by the 4th respondent to the petitioner. The 4th respondent does not have a case that the original title deeds included any other property other than that comprised in Ext. P1 sale deed. The conditions in the sale deed having been fully satisfied by the petitioner herein, who was the vendee and the 4th respondent who is the vendor having no subsisting claim for satisfaction either the loan amount or the balance sale consideration; the 4th respondent cannot raise any claim over the title deed of the property. It is also to be noticed that the production of the title deed in O.S. 76/2008, if at all required, can only be for collateral purpose and the petitioner definitely, cannot assert title at this stage, when he has parted with the title by Ext. P1 sale deed. In such circumstances, objection raised by the 4th respondent is of no avail and it is only appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent to hand over the title deed to the petitioner. There shall be a direction so to do. Same shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition allowed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.