Sasikala M.B vs State Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 4889 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

    WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.2897 OF 2021(J)


PETITIONER:

      1        SASIKALA M.B.,
               AGED 43 YEARS
               W/O.LATE P.KARUPPAN, PADUMANNIL THODI HOUSE, UTHRAM
               NRA-126, MANJUMMEL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -683501.

      2        LAKSHMIPRIYA P.K.,
               AGED 20 YEARS
               D/O.LATE P.KARUPPAN, PADUMANNIL THODI HOUSE, UTHRAM
               NRA-126, MANJUMMEL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -683501.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
               SRI.JEFRIN MANUEL

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE BANK OF INDIA
               REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, RACPC-
               II ERNAKULAM, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682036.

      2        THE BRANCH MANAGER,
               STATE BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM SOUTH BRANCH,
               ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682036.


               ADV.SRI. SETHUMADHAVAN,SR.SC.
               ADV.SMT.PREETHI.P.V,SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2897 OF 2021(J)

                                      2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of February 2021

The petitioner is the widow of Late P.Karuppan

who had availed a loan from the 2 nd respondent Bank

furnishing his property as a security. It is

stated that the loan account is closed.

Petitioners and another daughter aged 6 years are

the legal heirs of Late Karuppan. It is stated

that the title deed is not returned by the Bank

even after the account is closed and they are

insisting for orders from the guardian of the

court.

2. The learned Senior counsel, Adv.Sri.Sethu

Madhavan, on being instructed on behalf of the

Bank submits that, the condition is imposed only

in the interest of the minor child. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioners are not proposing to create any charge

over the property. Hence, the petitioners would WP(C).No.2897 OF 2021(J)

execute an indemnity bond before the Bank.

Therefore, there shall be a direction to the

respondents to release the title deed to the

petitioner on execution of an indemnity bond to

the effect that the petitioners would not do

anything against the interest of the minor child.

This shall be done within a period of two weeks.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA JUDGE DM WP(C).No.2897 OF 2021(J)

APPENDIX PETITIONERS'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SRI.KARUPPAN DATED 07.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELATIONSHIP CERTIFICATE OF VILLAGE OFFICER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 30.04.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SMT.PAPPATHI DATED 13.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN CLOSURE CERTIFICATE LETTER ISSUED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 14.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO RTI APPLICATION DATED 12.01.2021.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE