NARAYANA PISHARADI Vs. STANCASH CHITS (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are defendants 3 to 6 in O.S.No.4 of 2021 pending on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. The first respondent herein has filed the suit seeking a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.57,50,000.00 with 18% interest from the defendants, charged on the plaint schedule property. As per the averments in the plaint, defendants 1 and 2 had joined a kuri conducted by the plaintiff and had availed the prized kury amount after executing necessary documents. Later, when the plaintiff demanded more security for the amount, the title deed of the first petitioner was deposited and an equitable mortgage created by deposit of title deeds. Defendants 1 and 2 are not made parties to this original petition. The first petitioner is the third defendant in the suit. Petitioners 2 to 4 are arrayed as defendants 4 to 6, alleging that, subsequent to the deposit of title deeds, first petitioner had created a settlement deed in their favour. The petitioners' case before the trial court is that the third respondent is suffering from bipolar disease and had entered into a sale agreement with one Hammeed. Although the agreement was terminated subsequently, the title handed over to Hammeed during the subsistence of the agreement was not returned. The plaintiff in collusion with Hammeed had filed the suit on the strength of that document. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner had not deposited any title deed or created equitable mortgage with respect to the plaint schedule property.

(2.) In the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.4 of 2021, seeking permission to deposit the entire plaint claim and to return the original of the title deed deposited by the first petitioner. The first respondent opposed the prayer, contending that the documents can be released only after the decree passed in the suit is satisfied. By Ext.P8 order, the trial court dismissed the application, upholding the objection of the first respondent. Hence, this original petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, the petitioners having volunteered to deposit the entire plaint claim, the trial court ought to have released the title deeds. Instead the trial court took a hyper technical view by relying on Sec. 60 and 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 completely overlooking the court's inherent power to grant any relief under Sec. 151 of CPC.