K.A.BALAKRISHNAN Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a senior citizen. He has sought for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to remove the terms/clause making the Will of the petitioner irrevocable. A direction is sought to the Reserve Bank of India to see that age old persons are not given much hardships and delay in processing the loan on any scheme for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens and also formulate uniform procedure for all banks and financial institutions in this regard. Petitioner and his wife, according to the petitioner, are suffering from various illness and they are in need of money for treatment now. They are abandoned by their children. Pointing out the notification of the Central Government dated 31-12-2007 regarding maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens and about the Canara Jeevan Reverse Mortgage Loan Scheme, the petitioner along with his wife filed an application before the 1st respondent bank in November 2011. Ext.P4 is the copy of the scheme. Communications have been issued as per Exts.P5 and P6. According to the petitioner, as a security for the loan, the petitioner is prepared to offer land and building, which according to the petitioner are worth Rs.75 lakhs. Ext.P7 is the copy of the report of the valuer. A true copy of the proforma of the Irrevocable Will received from respondents 1 and 2 is produced as Ext.P8.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 wanted the petitioner to execute and register an Irrevocable Will and bequeath absolutely the property given as security in favour of the bank without any right for the petitioner to remove/modify/cancel or amend the Will at any point of time during the life time of the petitioner. It is stated that the said clause is illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has raised the larger question in the writ petition including one for a direction to the Reserve Bank of India to frame a scheme as sought for. I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to give a direction by this Court to the Reserve Bank of India to frame a scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out that any failure of statutory duty on the part of the Reserve Bank of India requiring interference by this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus as sought for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.