P KODALINGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have prayed for declaration, declaring that the clauses (2) to (9) and especially Clauses (2), (3) and (9) of the mortgage deeds dated 6.1.1998, 11.2.1999, 28.4.1999, 6.3.1998, 15.3.1999, 28.12.1998, 16.11.1999, 16.11.1999, 16.11.1999, 7.4.1999, 20.10.1999, 8.5.2000, 14.5.1998, 30.11.2000, 16.11.1999, 30.8.1999, 5.5.2000, 15.3.1999, 17.2.1995, 15.3.1999, 13.9.2000, 23.1.1998, 17.4.2000, 18.8.1999 and 6.11.1997 relating to the loan sanction order No.1246, 1311, 371, 8660, 1394, 1392, 1391, 1335, 1384, 1412, 1272, 1424, 1393, 724, 1414, 8659, 30/94-95, 8661, 9232,1252,473,724 and 1242 of the 3rd respondent society respectively, as invalid and void and consequently, forbearing the respondents from enforcing the impugned Clauses (2) to (9) and especially Clauses (2),(3) and (9) for recovery of the loan sanctioned.

(2.) AS the relief of declaration is asked on the same averments in all these Writ Petitions, the facts as stated in the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition in W.P. No.2727/2005 are only referred to and they are as follows: The petitioner is a member of D.D.301, Andipatti Cooperative Building Society Limited, Andipatti. The Society had sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner and the said amount is repayable in a period of ten years with interest at 17% p.a. spread over to 120 equal monthly instalments. For availing the loan, the petitioner was asked to furnish immovable property as security by means of a simple mortgage. A hypothecation bond was also executed by the petitioner in favour of the society in the form of a mortgage deed on 6.1.1998. One of the conditions in the mortgage deed is that the petitioner should pay interest at 35.5%. Aggrieved by the rate of interest as against the interest said to have been agreed at 17% p.a. When the loan was sanctioned, the petitioner has approached this Court. On the same set of facts and grounds, other Writ Petitions have also been filed. In my opinion, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable as the terms and conditions are purely contractual and the challenge to such terms and conditions cannot be the subject of the Writ Petitions. AS the Writ Petitions are held to be not maintainable, I am not elaborating the clauses as contained in the mortgage deed, more particularly Clauses 2,3 and 9.

(3.) IN view of the above, I find that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable as it is purely a contractual obligation between the parties and the mortgage deeds have also been acted upon. Hence, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, all connected W.P.M.Ps. are also dismissed.