THOMAS JOHN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.783 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, is the appellant. THE appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.93 of 1994 of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam. THE suit was filed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over to the plaintiff the original title deed bearing No.2773/81 within a specified time. THE trial court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for. THE suit was dismissed with costs and confirmed in appeal. Parties hereinafter are referred to as the plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) PLAINTIFF purchased an item of property under document No.2773/81. It is averred in the plaint that the said property and the suit property belonging to the plaintiff was taken care of by one George Philip, who is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff. George Philip is having the custody of title deeds belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff returned to India from Gulf country on 28.4.1987. Thereafter he demanded his title deeds from George Philip. But he did not hand over the title deeds. PLAINTIFF further pleaded that he came to know on enquiry that George Philip had misused the title deeds by availing loan from the banks. It is his further case that he has not authorized George Philip to deal with his properties. George Philip told the plaintiff that the title deeds were lost, therefore the plaintiff issued a paper publication stating the missing of the title deeds. Finally the plaintiff located the title deeds in the custody of George Philip. It is further pleaded that he came to know that George Philip and his associates availed a loan from the bank and the title deeds were deposited with the bank. According to him the transactions entered by George Philip and the bank is not with his consent or knowledge and that he had not executed any document in favour of the bank and therefore the bank is duty bound to handover the title deed to the plaintiff. The suit was filed in the aforesaid context and for the reliefs mentioned above.

(3.) THE trial court also on evidence found that the case of the plaintiff regarding the location of the documents in question with the defendant bank appears to be very strange. THE court below extracted the publication in the newspaper and rightly held that the publication was not made with the object of getting back the title deed but, for the purpose of getting certified copy of the document in the absence of the original. THE trial court held that there is no justification or any reason stated by the plaintiff for not initiating any steps for recovery of the document till January 1989 though he came back to Kerala on 28.4.1987. THE trial court also held that the version of the plaintiff regarding his attempts to locate the document is full of contradictions and that the publication of Ext.A1 notice was purposely made by the plaintiff for the purpose of the case alone and not at all with a sincere and earnest desire to get back the documents. Both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court examined all the facts and circumstances leading to the missing of the document alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint and as PW1. THE entire matter was examined in detail for the purpose of finding as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction prayed for. THE courts below on evidence held that it is clear that the plaintiff was aware of the various business transactions of George Philip and associates but he himself was also a partner of the business in many transactions. Both courts found that there was a hide and seek play by George Philip and his associates in availing loan facility from the defendant bank and that the plaintiff was having full knowledge of the transaction by which loan was sanctioned on the basis of document in question and therefore the courts below concluded that the transaction took place with the clear consent of the plaintiff. THE courts below on facts found that the plaintiff has no case that the document in question reached the hands of the defendant bank on account of any fraud or illegal acts on the part of the defendant bank and on the other hand, the plaintiff could not disprove the allegation of the defendant bank that fraud has been payed in availing the loan on the basis of the document in question. THE case has been decided on the basis of facts, evidence and attendant circumstances. THEre is a full fledged discussion on facts and circumstances by the courts below. No valid grounds are made out by the appellant to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the courts below. No question of law muchless any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.