Salomy Roy vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 10011 Ker

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.

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

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

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.