Kerala High Court
Salomy Roy vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 5 April, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 38536 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 SALOMY ROY
AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. ROY,
CHENTHADIYIL HOUSE, MEMADANGU P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686672
2 SHEEBA TOMY
AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. TOMY,
EDAMANASSERY HOUSE, CHAKKAMPUZHA P.O.,
VELLILAPPILLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686574
BY ADVS.
THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE
K.C.THOMAS (PALA)
ALEX THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
KUNCHITHANNY BRANCH, KUNCHITHANNY P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685565
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER.
2 MERCY SEBASTIAN
ALUMKALKAROTTU HOUSE, CHENGALAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686585
BY ADV.
SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.38536 of 2023
:2:
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are stated to be the daughters of late K.T.Thomas, and concede that the 2 nd respondent is their sibling. They say that, their deceased father had availed of a loan from the 1st respondent Bank and that he died before he could clear it; thus constraining them to have paid off the entire outstanding and liquidated it. They say that, however, when they requested the 1st respondent Bank to release the title document of the property in their favour, on the strength of Ext.P4 Will executed by their deceased father, they have refused to do so, saying that the consent of the 2 nd respondent is also necessary. They assert that, such consent is unnecessary because, Ext.P2 Will bequeaths the entire property in their favour.
2. Sri.Gilbert George Correya - learned standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Bank, submitted that his client has nothing against the petitioners and that they are willing to abide by any direction to be issued by this Court. He added that, however, they do not want to be involved in any litigation to be initiated by the 2nd respondent in future and that, it is, therefore, that they had insisted on the petitioners obtaining her consent. W.P.(C) No.38536 of 2023 :3:
3. I have examined the afore submissions, and have also gone through the materials on record.
4. It is pertinent that, in spite of service of summons from this Court on 2nd respondent, she has chosen not to be present in person, or to be represented through counsel. This Court is, therefore, constrained to dispose of this writ petition in her absence.
5. As indicated above, the petitioners stake claim on the property on the strength of Ext.P4 Will. They say that since they have now propounded the said Will; and there being no challenge to it by the 2 nd respondent, the 1st respondent Bank is enjoined to release the title document in their favour.
6. That said, I am of the firm view that this is a matter which the Bank should consider at the first instance, after hearing the parties; and, if required, after obtaining necessary consents and indemnities from the petitioners. If the 2 nd respondent does not appear before the Bank for the hearing that I propose to order them to conduct, then they will certainly be at liberty to release the title documents in favour of the petitioners, on them executing necessary indemnity bonds, holding them indemnified against any liability with respect to W.P.(C) No.38536 of 2023 :4: litigation, that may be launched by the 2nd respondent in future.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the competent Authority of the 1 st respondent to hear the petitioners, as also the 2nd respondent, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and take a final decision as to whether the title documents can be released in favour of the former, on the strength of Ext.P4 Will.
Should the 2nd respondent refuse to appear, then, as I have already said above, the Bank will obtain necessary bonds of indemnity and documents from the petitioners, and release the documents to them without any avoidable delay.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE anm W.P.(C) No.38536 of 2023 :5: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38536/2023 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF PATTA NO. LA-7/16/BSY ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), RAJAKUMARI Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 22/11/2021 ISSUED FROM BAISONVALLEY VILLAGE Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 19/5/2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL DATED 25.10.2019 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, RAJAKUMARI EXECUTED BY LATE K.T.THOMAS Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3/5/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31/10/2023 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.