ANCES FATIMA Vs. SECRETARY RAMAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to return all the documents which were furnished as Security by way of mortgage for raising the loan from the 1st respondent-society which is a society registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1964. There was a dispute raised by the petitioner that inspite of her repaying the loan amount with interest, the mortgage was not redeemed and the documents were not released by the 1st respondent. THIS was tried by the arbitrator i.e. the 2nd respondent as contemplated under Section 61 and 62 of the Co-operative Societies Act. It is needless to mention that in matters like this, filing of suit is barred under Section 121 of the Act and the arbitrator is treated as a Court. The 2nd respondent has rendered an award on 10-8-1987 holding that the petitioner had paid the entire loan amount with interest etc. and nothing was due by her and directed the 1st respondent to return the documents to the petitioner. The same was assailed by the 1st respondent in C.TANo. 23 of 1987 before the Co-operative Tribunal, but the appeal failed and by judgment dated 4-5-1988, the award of the arbittator dated 10-8-1987 was confirmed. Indisputably this order has become final. The inevitable coreilary is that the documents have got to be returned back to the petitioner but that was not done and that is why this writ petition was filed. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that inasmuch as the society did not remit the money to the Government after collection of the amount from the petitioner, the documents cannot be returned to the petitioner THIS argument is fallacious, inter se the petitioner and the Government. The petitioner's father being a member of the 1st respondent-society had availed of the loan facility and his heirs i.e. the petitioner and his mother had cleared the said loan, the relationship of the petitioner and the 1st respondent was that of mortgager and mortgagee. After repayment of the debt, the mortgage stood redeemed and the 1st respondent was duty bound to return the documents back to the petitioner it is no ground to say that merely because the society did not remit that amount back to the Government, the documents cannot be returned. THIS shows the incompetency of the Government. If the society did not remit the money which was collected from the debtors-members, it is the duty of the Government to recover the same by initiating appropriate proceedings including that of surcharge under Section 60 of the Act. But that is no ground to say that the documents will not be returned to the petitioner and the like. In the circumstances, there shall be a writ issued against the respondents directing them to return the documents of title to the petitioner which was the subject matter of mortgage loan transaction which was deemed, within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of this order.

(2.) THE writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.