SRI NAGENDRA PRASAD Vs. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, THE MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK AND THE MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the first respondent to release the title deeds of the petitioners house property bearing Khatha No. 28, Site Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Ward No. 55 of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike situate at Ittamadu Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The petitioner had offered himself as a guarantor in respect of the loan advanced by the first respondent in favour of Sri V.S. Krishna Murthy and his wife Smt. M.K. Geetha in the year 2004. The said Sri V.S. Krishna Murthy and his wife are also stated to have offered their immovable property as security for the loan obtained by them. Subsequently, the petitioner has purchased the property in question under the sale deed dated 30.06.2005 from one Sri. Munindrachari. In respect of the said transaction, the petitioner had approached the first respondent for finance and the same has been cleared. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is seeking return of the title documents which had been deposited with the first respondent in respect of his own financial transaction and not as a guarantor for discharge of the loan advanced by the first respondent to Sri V.S. Krishna Murthy.

(2.) IT is also to be noticed that the petitioner has subsequently sold the property in favour of Smt. B.P. Bharathi under the sale deed dated 01.07.2013. At an earlier point, the petitioner had also deposited a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/ -. At that juncture, when the said amount of Rs. 16,00,000/ - was sufficient to discharge the extent of the amount said to be due from Sri V.S. Krishna Murthy to the first respondent -Bank, the petitioner had approached the Branch of the first respondent -Bank for release of the documents. The Branch of the first respondent -Bank had addressed a communication dated 12.04.2013 (Annexure -D) to the Assistant General Manager. The contents of the said letter are relied on by the petitioner to contend that the first respondent -Bank had in fact taken note of all these transactions and a decision was only required for the purpose of returning the title deeds of the petitioner. In that view, it is contended that the respondents are not justified in holding on to the documents.

(3.) THE respondents No. 2 and 3 though have been granted time have not filed their statement of objections to point out the manner in which the petitioner remains liable to them or their entitlement to the documents.