LAWS(KER)-2025-4-72

SHEELA FRANCIS PARAKKAL Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

Decided On April 08, 2025
Sheela Francis Parakkal Appellant
V/S
AUTHORISED OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners seek for a direction to release their title deeds and also for a declaration that the second respondent has no authority to retain petitioners' original title deeds, despite closure of the loan account. Petitioners have also sought for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 for illegal retention of documents for nine years after closure of the loan.

(2.) The first petitioner and her husband had availed a loan from the second respondent in the year 2009. Second and third petitioners who are their children, were the guarantors to the said loan. Husband of the first petitioner expired on 20/10/2011. Petitioners are the legal heirs, as is evident from the legal heirship certificate dtd. 20/3/2013.

(3.) On 16/7/2015, the bank issued Exhibit-P4 letter acknowledging the deposit of four title deeds by the petitioners as security for the housing loan availed from them. The document which included two exchange deeds bearing Nos. 1924/1992 and 2039/1992, a release deed No.1350/1975 and a sale deed No.3625/1971 all of Aluva Sub Registry Office, were retained by the second respondent bank. Subsequently, on 4/8/2015, as per Exhibit-P5, petitioners requested the second respondent to close the loan account and release the collateral securities mortgaged with the bank, after remitting Rs.58,01,320.00. According to the petitioners, after crediting the cheque issued by them, the bank closed the loan account on 5/8/2015. The statement of accounts is produced as proof of closure of the loan. However, despite closure of the loan account, the title deeds relating to the property mortgaged, were not returned. Though several letters were issued, the bank did not return the original title deeds. Petitioners contend that refusal to release the original title deeds, even after closure of the loan account is illegal and the unilateral action of the bank in withholding the security documents, after closure is arbitrary. Hence, they have approached this Court seeking the reliefs mentioned earlier.