S.Ilamaran v. The Branch Manager

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN S.Ilamaran ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ayyampalayam - ADB (01645) Branch, Dindigul District -624220.

2. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, 5, Rajakapatti Junction, Trichy Bye Pass Road, Dindigul District - 624 005.

3. The Lead District Manager, State Bank of India, 1, Salai Road, Ashok Nagar, Dindigul District 624001.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to take necessary steps 1/5

to direct the respondents to take necessary steps to return the original documents (Doc.No.1112/1985 and 1515/1993) registered in Batlagundu Sub registrar office, Dindigul District to the petitioner by considering petitioner's representation, dated 24.06.2025 within a stipulated time with accordance to with law. For petitioner : Mr. C. Kannathasan For respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar Standing Counsel *****

ORDER

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is before this Court for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to take necessary steps to return the original documents (Doc.Nos. 1112/1985 and 1515/1993) registered in Batlagundu Sub Registrar Office, Dindigul District to the petitioner by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 24.06.2025.

3. It appears that the petitioner's deceased father Late.M.Sivalingam had 2/5

taken a loan from the first respondent/Bank. While taking the said loan, the petitioner's father had mortgaged the property by way of Deposit of Title Deed in respect of the properties situated at Kunnuvarangkottai Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Batlakundu, Dindigal, which were registered as Doc.Nos.1112/1985 and 1515/1993. Since the petitioner's father had committed default, the first respondent/Bank had proceeded against the petitioner's father to recover the lands by way of filing O.S.No.138 of 2001 before the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul.

4. It is informed that the suit was also decreed in favour of the first respondent/Bank on 08.03.2002.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/Bank submits that after the suit was decreed on 08.03.2002, the Bank had failed to take steps to retrieve the documents by filing a suitable application for returning of the documents.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/Bank further submits that the petitioner has now come forward and has paid the entire amount that was 3/5

due as per the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.138 of 2001.

7. It is further submitted that the documents, which were filed before the said Court in O.S.No.138 of 2001 have been destroyed. To that effect, the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, has also returned the application filed for Returning of Documents, stating that the entire case bundle was destroyed as per R.O.C.No.7542/2015/92, dated 16.03.2016 and hence, the application for Returning of Documents was returned.

8. A copy of the return endorsement on the docket of the aforesaid copy application was filed before this Court. The same stands recorded.

9. Considering the same, there is no scope for directing the respondents/Bank to return the Title Deed in respect of the above mentioned property documents. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs. Index : Yes / No 25.07.2025 Internet : Yes / No apd 4/5

C.SARAVANAN, J.

apd 25.07.2025 5/5