C.KRISHNAVENI Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERBAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal calling in question judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2865/2009 by XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, on 30.09.2013 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, which was for the relief of declaration to declare that registered mortgage deed dated 27.12.2004 executed by her (plaintiff) in favour of first defendant - Bank and duly registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, Bangalore, on 30.12.2004 as null and void and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to deliver the possession of original title deeds pertaining to suit schedule property. BRIEF BACKGROUND:

(2.) Plaintiff, who is the absolute owner of property bearing No.18 (No.68), Rajamma Garden, Rajiv Gandhi Road, Jaraganahalli, Bangalore 560078, had instituted the suit in question contending interalia that in order to further construct the house on the remaining extent of suit schedule site, she had approached the first defendant - Bank for a housing loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and second defendant, who was the then Manager of first defendant - Bank had demanded and had called upon plaintiff to furnish all the original documents and as such, she handed over the documents to second defendant for the purposes of scrutiny along with loan application during the third week of December' 2004. It was further contended that second defendant demanded that plaintiff had to execute some documents in favour of Bank as security towards the loan amount proposed to be sanctioned and took signatures of plaintiff on blank papers and printed formats. It was also contended that second defendant demanded that plaintiff should execute a mortgage deed in favour of Bank and believing that loan will be sanctioned in her favour subject to legal opinion that would be furnished by the panel Advocate of the Bank as assured, she executed the same. She has also stated that she had repeatedly visited the Bank enquiring as to when loan amount would be sanctioned and after few months she was informed that housing loan was not sanctioned but a personal loan of Rs.1,00,000/- was sanctioned. Plaintiff has further contended that she made her own arrangements to put up construction of her house and as such, she demanded return of original documents from first defendant-Bank, but first defendant stated that it was misplaced and would be returned on tracing of the same. She has also stated that in spite of repeated enquiries, she was not furnished with the documents but received a notice alleging that legal opinion submitted by plaintiff is not in the prescribed format, which was duly replied and a demand notice dated 05.09.2006 came to be issued by the Bank claiming a sum of Rs.82,000/- as installment towards housing loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and by the time, she approached first defendant - Bank for return of title deeds, Bank had initiated proceedings to recover the amount.

(3.) Plaintiff has contended that she was not at all sanctioned housing loan and Bank Officials had taken signatures on blank white papers and illegal demand had been made by the Bank and mortgage deed had been obtained fraudulently. It is also contended that on a private complaint filed by the plaintiff, investigation was conducted by the jurisdictional police and 'B' Report came to be submitted. On these amongst other grounds, plaintiff sought for declaring that mortgage deed dated 27.12.2004 executed by her in favour of first defendant- Bank is null and void and sought for a mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to return the original title deeds relating to the suit property.