(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare that the inaction on the part of the Official Respondents including the Respondent No.4 bank in not delivering the custody of Original title deeds and other documents shown in the list annexed herewith, pertaining to their apartments 'Golden Castle' to the Petitioner-Association is Arbitrary, Biased and amounts to infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India and to Direct the Official Respondents herein including the Respondent No.4 bank to deliver the Original title deeds and other documents shown in the list annexed herewith, pertaining to their apartments 'Golden Castle' to the Petitioner-Association by issuing a Writ in the interest of justice

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant, interim Injunction restraining the Official Respondents from releasing the Original Title Deeds shown in the annexure to the Respondent No.5, herein pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein to file reply affidavit in the above writ petition i.e., W.P No.14578 of 2022.

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to amend the cattle with respect to Respondent No‘s 2 to 4 in the Writ Petition as under: Existing Cause Title: 2. Managing Director, Canara Bank, 1/2 JC Road Bangalore - 560002 3. The Deputy General Manager, Regional Office, Canara Bank, Near Flyover Service Road, Gurunanak Nagar, Vijayawada - 520008. 4. The Branch Manager, D.No: 40-6-32, Murali Fortune Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada - 520 010. New Cause Title: 2. M/s. Canara Bank Limited, Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, 112 JC Road, Bengaluru - 560002. 3. M/s. Canara Bank Limited, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Regional Office, Near Flyover Service Road, Gurunanak Nagar, Vijayawada-520008. 4. M/s. Canara Bank Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, D.No.40-6-32, Murali Fortune Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada - 520010.)

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

                          “................ issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare that the inaction on the part of the Official Respondents including the Respondent No.4 Bank in not delivering the custody of original title deeds and other documents shown in the list annexed herewith, pertaining to their apartments ‘Golden Castle‘ to the Petitioner-Association is arbitrary, biased and amounts to infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India and to direct the Official Respondents herein including the Respondent No.4 Bank to deliver the Original title deeds and other documents shown in the list annexed herewith, pertaining to their apartments ‘Golden Castle‘ to the Petitioner – Association by issuing a Writ in the interest of justice and to pass such other order ………”. ‖

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.5, the original owner, who has been served Rule Nisi.

3. The facts are not in dispute and the material on record discloses that the Writ Petitioner is a Registered Association vide Registration No.321/2011, dated 12.12.2011, consisting of flat owners in the name and style of ‘Golden Castle Residents Association‘ with defined objectives.

4. It appears that on coming to know of an earlier loan transaction which has been entered into by the 5th respondent with the respondent Nos.2 to 4 – Bank authorities, the Writ Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 01.09.2021 stating that they are willing to pay the loan amounts that were due by the 5th respondent to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and have sent a proposal to pay an amount of Rs.23,00,000/- as full and final settlement of dues in loan Account No.33437220005017 entered into by the 5th respondent herein and in response to the said representation and treating the said proposal as that of the respondent No.5 herein, the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Labbipet has approved OTS vide proceedings, dated 14.09.2021, and the factum of payment of arrears of OTS amount as approved as Rs.23,00,000/- by the Petitioner‘s is not in dispute.

5. It is also matter of record vide representation, the loan account was closed on 29.09.2021 and the Petitioner has submitted a representation vide Ex.P-5 and also got issued a legal notice, through the counsel, dated 29.11.2021 (Ex.P-6), which was duly acknowledged and as there is no response from the respondent Nos.2 to 4, the present Writ Petition is filed.

6. Though the records of 4th respondent refer to the name of 5th respondent, the factum of OTS payment by the Petitioner is not in dispute.

7. In the light of the facts and circumstances the return of original documents is subject matter of the present Writ Petition.

The 4th respondent is a mortgagee and as per Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ‘the T.P. Act‘), it is not only the 5th respondent, who is the mortgagor, and also the Writ Petitioner who has an interest in the subject property situated in R.S.No.246/1A1 of Kanuru Village to an extent of 1192 Sq. Yards has stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor.

8. Section 91 of the T.P. Act (for short, ‘the T.P. Act‘) reads as follows:

                          “91. Persons who may sue for redemption —

                          Besides the mortgagor, any of the following persons may redeem, or institute a suit for redemption of, the mortgaged property, namely:—(a)any person (other than the mortgagee of the interest sought to be redeemed) who has any interest in, or charge upon, the property mortgaged or in or upon the right to redeem the same;(b)any surety for the payment of the mortgage-debt or any part thereof; or(c)any creditor of the mortgagor who has in a suit for the administration of his estate obtained a decree for sale of the mortgaged property‖.

9. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment in W.P. No.7301 of 2023, dated 15.02.2024, rendered by the High Court of Karnataka and also the judgments rendered by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Smt. Gowramma and another v. Shri Kalingappa (D), Represented by L.Rs. and others (Civil Appeal No.1574 of 2019, dated 08.02.2019) and Narayan Deorao Javle (Deceased) through LRs v. Krishna and others (AIR 2021 Supreme Court 3920).

10. I proceed to consider the ratio of each judgment cited before. Insofar as the facts in W.P. No.7301 of 2023 are concerned, though the prayer is to return the documents, I find the relief that has been sought and granted by the Karnataka High Court is in a different factual scenario and an analogy to the facts of the present case is only to the extent of OTS payment being made in pursuant to the judicial orders passed earlier and the question remained is only return of the documents.

11. Insofar as the judgment rendered in the case of Narayan Deorao Javle (3rd supra) is concerned, in the said case the issue therein was whether the subsequent purchaser steps into the shoes of the mortgagor and whether in the given facts and circumstances of the said case, the subsequent purchaser would have to be impleaded in the earlier suit for foreclosure of the mortgage and in view of all the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that the subsequent purchaser was required to be made a party to the earlier suit by the mortgagee for foreclosure and not being done so, the earlier order of foreclosure is void.

12. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, the question of foreclosure by the mortgage bank, represented by the 4th respondent – Bank is ruled out in view of the redemption of mortgage by approval of OTS by respondent No.4 and payment thereof by the Writ Petitioner resulting in redemption.

13. In view of the clear conclusion, I have arrived at based on Section 91 of the T.P. Act, I am of the considered view that the other judgment cited in Smt. Gowramma and another (2nd supra), need not be gone into.

14. Though the judgment rendered in Narayan Deorao Javle (3rd supra) arises out of the civil proceedings, I am of the considered view that in the light of the un-disputed facts existing in the present case, the Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is maintainable and further in view of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in ABL International Limited and others v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and others {2003 (10) SCALE 81}, the 4th respondent being an instrumentality to the State is bound to act in a fair and rational manner even in contractual matter and further in the light of Section 91 of the T.P. Act, the Writ Petitioner has clearly stepped into the shoes of the original owner – mortgagor. In view of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 are directed to return the original documents relating to R.S. No.246/1A1, situated in 1192 Sq. Yards of Kanuru village to the Petitioner – Association within four (4) weeks. Further, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to effect cancellation of the documents with the appropriate authorities in the event of any registered encumbrance is created, as the same is ancillary to the relief granted earlier. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.