RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a member of the third respondent Co-operative Bank, availed himself of a loan after mortgaging a piece of property and later cleared it. When he sought the return of the title deeds of the property after clearing the loan, the respondent Bank refused. The refusal seems to be on the premise that the petitioner's wife also secured a loan, and the petitioner's title deeds are deemed to have been kept as security for the realisation of the said debt, too. In other words, the third respondent Bank has exercised its general lien. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the loan obtained by his wife. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not a guarantor to the loan. Nor has he offered his property as security.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has, on the other hand, strenuously contended that the petitioner has all along known about the loan obtained by his wife. He has, in fact, contended that it is the petitioner that is instrumental in his wife's securing the loan.