C. P. Ponnappan vs The Kerala State Defence Services ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2762 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

      MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.26412 OF 2020(B)


PETITIONER:

               C. P. PONNAPPAN
               AGED 62 YEARS
               S/O. PADMANABHAN, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE,
               KUMBALANGI, KOCHI.

               BY ADV. SRI.T.KABIL CHANDRAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE KERALA STATE DEFENCE SERVICES CO- OPERATIVE
               HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
               NO. 4343, ANJIPARAMBIL BUILDING, ANAND BAZAR,
               SOUTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 016.

      2        THE PRESIDENT
               THE KERALA STATE DEFENCE SERVICES CO- OPERATIVE
               HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., NO. 4343, ANJIPARAMBIL
               BUILDING, ANAND BAZAR, SOUTH RAILWAY STATION,
               ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 016.

      3        THE SECRETARY
               THE KERALA STATE DEFENCE SERVICES CO- OPERATIVE
               HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., NO. 4343, ANJIPARAMBIL
               BUILDING, ANAND BAZAR, SOUTH RAILWAY STATION,
               ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 016.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
25.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.26412 OF 2020(B)                2




                                JUDGMENT

The 1st respondent is a Society registered under the Kerala Co-

operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder and the

respondents 2 and 3 are the President and Secretary respectively of the 1st

respondent. The Society was constituted and formed for the purpose of

extending financial aid to its members, who are essentially retired military

personnel.The petitioner states that he is an ex-serviceman and is a member

of the 1st respondent Society.

2. The petitioner states that in the year 2014, he availed a housing loan

for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs from the 1st respondent Society and towards security,

he was required to deposit Exhibit P1 title deed bearing No.4845 of 1994 of

the Kochi SRO, an item of property owned by him. He states that Exhibit P3

Certificate issued by the 3rd respondent would evidence the fact that the title

deed is retained by the respondents. The petitioner was required to repay the

loan in 60 monthly instalments of Rs.15,000/- each. The petitioner states that

he has cleared the entire amount and acknowledging the same Exhibit P2

receipt has been issued stating that the loan has been closed as on

16/9/2019. The petitioner states that after closing the loan, he approached the

respondents and requested that his title deed retained by the respondents be

returned. However, the respondents refused to release the deed. In the said

circumstances, the petitioner issued Exhibit P4 notice through his lawyer

demanding the return of the title deed and also compensation for the delay.

The petitioner states that the respondents refused to respond to the said

notice as well. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has

approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

"A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,

order or direction thereby command the respondents 1 to 3

to return the original title deed of the petitioner bearing

No.4845 of 1994 of Kochi S.R.O on finding that, the

petitioner has fully repaid the loan amount outstanding in

Loan No.231 with the respondents.

2. The notice issued to the respondents have been returned as

unclaimed. In view of Rule 51 (2) of the Kerala High Court Rules, it is declared

that respondents have been duly served notice on this petition.

3. I have heard Sri. Kabil Chandran T., the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and have considered the submissions.

4. Exhibit P2 receipt produced before this Court reveals that the loan

availed by the petitioner vide No.231 has been closed on 16/9/2019. Exhibit

P3 shows in unmistakable terms that the title deed of the petitioner is retained

by the respondents. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any

justification on the part of the respondents in retaining the title deed after the

closure or the loan.

This Writ petition will stand disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 3

to return the original title deed of the petitioner bearing No.4845 of 1994 of

Kochi SRO expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the

date of production of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

                                             RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   ps/26/1/2021                                        JUDGE





                            APPENDIX
   PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

   EXHIBIT P1         THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED
                      BEARING NO.4845 OF 1994 OF KOCHI
                      S.R.O.

   EXHIBIT P2         THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING
                      THE CLOSURE OF LOAN AMOUNT DATED
                      16.09.2019.

   EXHIBIT P3         THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
                      28.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.

   EXHIBIT P4         THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE
                      DATED 14.09.2020.

   EXHIBIT P5         THE TRUE COPY OF THE A/D CARD SHOWING
                      THE ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE BY THE 1ST
                      RESPONDENT.

   RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL



                                   //TRUE COPY//

                                    P.A TO JUDGE