Jharkhand High Court

Chet Lal Mahto vs Allahabad Bank on 5 June, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                    2025:JHHC:14491-DB



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                      L.P.A. No. 387 of 2018
                                 ---


      Chet Lal Mahto, son of Shri Bhawani Mahto, Chairman, Land
      Looser Sahyog Samitee Limited, Displaced Transport Company,
      Baidkaro, Sunday Bazar, P.S. Bermo, District- Bokaro
                                                 ...      ...  Appellant
                                   Versus
      1. Allahabad Bank, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata
      2. Allahabad Bank, Doranda Branch, Hinoo, Ranchi
      3. The Assistant General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Doranda
         Branch, Hinoo, Ranchi
      4. The Manager, Allahabad Bank, Doranda Branch, Hinoo, Ranchi
      5. United Bank of India, Head Office at 11, Hemant Basu Sarani,
         Kolkata, P.O. & P.S.- Kolkata, District- Kolkata
      6. United Bank of India, Jaridih Bazar Branch, P.O. & P.S.- Jaridih
         Bazar, District- Bokaro
                                                 ....     ...  Respondents
      CORAM:             HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                                ---
      For the Appellant           : Mr. K.K.Mishra, Advocate
                                    Mr. Sushavan Bhowmik, Advocate
      For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Ray Rajat Nath, Advocate
                                ---
Reserved on 05.05.2025                 Pronounced on 05.06.2025
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :

The present appeal is directed against the order/judgment

dated 17.04.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4238 of 2012 whereby the

said writ petition filed by the petitioner/original appellant- Lal Chand

Mahto (since deceased) was disposed of directing the respondent-

Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank) (hereinafter referred as the said

Bank) to hand over the certified copy of the sale deed to the original

appellant with an undertaking that if the lost document was mis-

utilized by any person, the said bank would compensate him for any

loss incurred on account of misuse of the original sale deed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

the original appellant (the then Chairman of 'Land Looser Sahyog

2025:JHHC:14491-DB

Samiti Limited') along with the present appellant being the partners

of 'Displaced Transport Company', had taken loan from the said Bank

by depositing the original sale deed in question and other original

papers of the concerned land by way of usufructuary/equitable

mortgage. They repaid the loan amount much before the stipulated

time and thereafter approached the said Bank to return the

original sale deed and other documents pertaining to their land, but

the matter remained unresponded. In the meantime, the appellants'

Samiti made a request to the United Bank of India for a loan of

Rs.2 crores to run the transport business which was though

sanctioned, but the Bank demanded original sale deed and other

documents related to the concerned land of the appellant which was

to be deposited before it by way of equitable mortgage.

3. It has further been submitted that the original sale deed and

other papers of the concerned landed property could not be

deposited before the United Bank of India as the same were lying in

the custody of the said Bank due to which the loan amount, which

was sanctioned by the United Bank of India, could not be released

and resultantly, the business of the 'Displaced Transport Company'

immensely suffered.

4. It has also been submitted that the original appellant finally

wrote a letter to the said Bank to return the original sale deed in

question and other documents which were lying in its custody,

however the respondent no. 3 informed him that the original sale

deed and other original documents of the concerned land were

missing. Thereafter, the original appellant filed a writ petition being

W.P.(C) No. 4238 of 2012 seeking issuance of direction upon the said

2025:JHHC:14491-DB

Bank to handover the original sale deed and other original

documents of the concerned land which were deposited by him by

way of usufructuary mortgage towards the loan amount.

5. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2018

directing the said Bank to hand over the certified copy of the sale

deed to the original appellant with an undertaking that if the lost

document was mis-utilized by any person, the said Bank would

compensate him for any loss which might incur on account of misuse

of original sale deed.

6. It has further been urged that the business of the said co-

operative society has been adversely affected for more than a

decade due to fault of the said Bank and as such the

damages quantified to the tune of Rs.1 crore should be indemnified

by the said bank.

7. It has also been contended that the certified copy of the sale

deed may be treated to be an original one in order to prevent

further sufferance of business of the said co-operative society of

which the appellant is the Chairman.

8. It has further been submitted that the respondent no.3

had sanctioned the loan amount on deposit of the original sale deed,

however the same was not returned even after clearing the loan

which manifests gross arbitrariness on the part of the respondent

no.3. The appellant is facing immense trouble and pecuniary loss for

more than a decade in the absence of the original sale deed for no

fault on his part.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the

learned Single Judge ought to have considered that it was the

2025:JHHC:14491-DB

responsibility of the said Bank to return the original sale deed and

other original documents of the land in question soon after closure

of the loan account. It has also been contended that the learned

Single Judge ought to have considered that the original appellant

was neither negligent nor at fault from the date of taking the loan till

finally discharging the same, but was made to suffer a huge loss due

to inaction on the part of the said Bank and as such, he was entitled

to be paid adequate compensation for the loss of the sale deed.

10. It has also been submitted that the learned Single Judge while

passing the impugned order dated 17.04.2018 ought to have

considered that unless the certified copy of the sale deed in question

is treated as original, it will be of no use to the appellant.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank has

submitted that the learned Single Judge while directing the said

Bank to hand over the certified copy of the original sale deed to the

original appellant, has also ordered that he will be compensated by

the Bank in case of misuse of the original sale deed and as such the

same needs no interference by this Court.

12. It has further been submitted that the loan account was closed

on 16.02.2005 itself and therefore, the appellant should have

approached the Bank immediately after closure of the loan account

for taking back the original documents, however he approached the

Bank only on 03.03.2011 and as such, the Bank was not in a

position to trace out the original sale deed.

13. It has also been contended that the appellant himself was

negligent in demanding the original sale deed from the said Bank

and as such he is not entitled to be compensated for loss of the

2025:JHHC:14491-DB

original sale deed. Moreover, as per the circular of the said Bank

dated 01.07.2014, in the event of loss of title deeds of mortgaged

property at the hands of the Bank, compensation is payable to the

extent of Rs.1000/- plus out of pocket expenses for obtaining

duplicate documents.

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

materials available on record.

15. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is

that once the original sale deed was deposited by the appellant with

the said Bank, it was the responsibility of the said Bank to keep it

safe and since the sale deed deposited by the appellant has been

lost due to the fault of the Bank, the appellant is entitled to be

compensated for the loss caused to him.

16. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank) has submitted that the original

sale deed was lost due to own negligence of the appellant as he did

not approach the said Bank for return of the sale deed immediately

after closure of the loan account and as such, he is not entitled to

get any compensation from the said Bank for the loss of the sale

deed.

17. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had deposited the

original sale deed as a usufructuary mortgage for taking loan from

said Bank and the loan amount was repaid by him within the

stipulated time. It is also an admitted fact that the original sale deed

deposited by the appellant was lost from the custody of the said

Bank.

18. Though learned counsel for the said Bank has tried to convince

2025:JHHC:14491-DB

this Court that the original documents of the sale deed in question

as well as other documents were lost due to own negligence of the

appellant as the same were not taken back by him immediately after

closure of the loan account, however the said Bank has not brought

on record any agreement between the Bank and appellant to the

effect that it was mandatory for the appellant to take back the

mortgaged documents of his concerned land within a fixed period of

time. The said Bank has also failed to bring on record any letter

issued by the concerned official of the Bank to the appellant

informing him to take back the original documents. Moreover, once

the original documents were submitted before the said Bank, it was

its responsibility to keep those safe till the same were taken back by

the mortgagor.

19. We have perused the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2018

rendered by the learned Single Judge, the relevant part of which is

quoted hereinbelow: -

"10. This Court is of the considered view that the title documents i.e. the original sale-deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984 is a valuable document and once it is lost the respondent Allahabad Bank cannot escape from its liability and responsibility by referring to the Circular dated 01.07.2014 by saying that in the event of loss of title deed, the Bank is liable to pay compensation only to the extent of Rs.1,000/- plus out of pocket expenses for obtaining duplicate documents. This court is of the considered view that the compensation policy of the Bank to the extent it relates to compensation payable in case of loss of original title deed by the Respondent Bank as contained in circular dated 01.07.2014 is neither sufficient nor has any statutory force and is not binding upon the appellant and the appellant is required to be protected and compensated in case the lost original sale deed is misused.

11. Considering the fact that the original sale-deed has

2025:JHHC:14491-DB

been misplaced by the respondent- Allahabad Bank, the respondent - Bank has to bear some responsibility so that the rights of the appellant is protected and the appellant is compensated in case the lost original sale deed is misused. The original documents which have been misplaced by the respondent- Allahabad Bank can be misused by any person. In such circumstances, the Bank ought to have filed First Information Report to the police in connection with loss of document and ought to have given a newspaper publication regarding the loss of the title- deed and thereafter, the Bank ought to have taken out the certified copy of the sale-deed and handed it over to the appellant alongwith the certified copy of the First Information Report as well as the newspaper publication regarding loss of the original sale deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984.

12. Considering the fact that original documents have been lost, the appellant has no option but to take the certified copy alongwith the connected documents so that the same can be used by the appellant in accordance with law.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent- Allahabad Bank is directed to complete the aforesaid procedure and hand over the certified copy of the sale-deed to the appellant with an undertaking that if the lost document is misutilized by any person, the Bank would compensate the appellant for any loss which may be incurred by the appellant on account of misuse of original sale-deed no. 450 dated 30.01.1984. The respondent- Allahabad Bank is directed to do the needful within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

20. We are of the view that the original sale deed was lost due to

the fault of the said Bank and not of the appellant. Though the

learned Single Judge was right in observing that once the title deed

of the concerned land was lost by the said Bank, it cannot escape its

liability and responsibility by referring to the Circular dated

01.07.2014 contending that the Bank is liable to pay compensation

only to the extent of Rs.1,000/- plus out of pocket expenses for

2025:JHHC:14491-DB

obtaining duplicate documents, however the direction issued to the

said Bank to obtain certified copy of the sale deed in question and to

handover the same to the appellant cannot be said to be sufficient.

The certified copy of any document cannot be equated with the

original one and the same is regarded as the secondary piece of

evidence. Thus, the loss of the original documents particularly the

sale deed in question cannot be compensated merely with the

supply of certified copy of the original.

21. We are therefore of the view that the appellant is entitled to be

adequately compensated for loss of the original sale deed in

question from the custody of the said Bank. Moreover, the said Bank

should not have taken causal approach in the present matter. It

should have rather taken stern action against the erring officials so

that such lapse is not repeated in future.

22. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has contended that

'Sanha' relating to missing of the original sale deed in question has

already been lodged by the said Bank in the concerned Police

Station. We are of the view that lodging of 'Sanha' by the Bank

cannot be treated as appropriate action considering the gravity of

the matter. The said Bank was required to lodge an F.I.R. in the

matter to find out the real culprit as well as to trace the original sale

deed of the appellant which was a valuable piece of document.

23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, over and above the

direction of the learned Single Judge as contained in the order dated

17.04.2018, following directions are issued to the said Bank: -

(i) The said Bank shall pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) as lumpsum compensation to the appellant.

(ii) The appellant will be at liberty to move the

2025:JHHC:14491-DB

appropriate civil court seeking further compensation,

if so advised.

(iii) The said Bank is directed to lodge an F.I.R

against its erring officer(s)/official(s) regarding the

loss of the original sale deed in question as well as

other documents which were deposited by the

appellant while taking loan from the said bank.

(iv) The said Bank is further directed to initiate

departmental proceeding against the erring

officer(s)/official(s) who were responsible for the

loss of the said documents.