GOPALKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a senior citizen, aged 73 years. The petitioner applied for a loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs to respondents 1 to 3 under the Reverse Mortgage Loan Scheme, offering the property of 7.20 ares, which he derived as per A schedule in Ext.P1 Partition Deed. The Bank rejected the application for a loan as per Exts.P8 and P9, stating that the reverse mortgage loan cannot be sanctioned against partition deed as per the loan policy of the Bank. Though the petitioner approached the Banking Ombudsman, the Banking Ombudsman refused to interfere as per Ext.P12.

(2.) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. B. Mohan Lal, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, Sri. Jawahar Jose.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the property derived by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 partition deed is duly mutated in the name of the petitioner and he has been paying land tax in his name as revealed from Ext. P2 land tax receipt. The property exclusively belongs to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 and P2. The source from which the petitioner derived the property is not relevant or material for the bank to accept the property as security for the loan. The learned Counsel cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar and Others [2025 Supreme(SC) 677] and Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and Others v. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai [(2020) 16 SCC 255] to substantiate the point that there is no difference between ancestral and self-acquired property as far as the property owner is concerned.