1. The ABZ Academy, a partnership firm of three brothers, namely, M.A. Moyeed, M.A. Moqueet and M.A. Haseeb, took a loan from the Appellant/Syndicate Bank. Rs.5,00,000/- were provided to the firm and Rs.2,00,000/- to one of its partners, namely, M.A. Haseeb. Thereafter, the loan became irregular, as a result of which the Bank filed two civil suits before the City Civil Court for recovery of the amount due to it. The proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest, Act, 2002 were also initiated by the Bank and in the said proceedings notice was issued to Smt. Bilquis Jabeen, who had stood as a guarantor for the loan taken from the Bank. The daughter of Smt. Bilquis Jabeen also filed a civil suit, claiming that in fact the property, which her mother had mortgaged with the Bank, had already been gifted by Smt. Bilquis Jabeen to her on 21.02.1983, i.e. much before the mortgage in favour of the Bank was created. Later on, there was a settlement between the borrowers and the lender and a payment of Rs.11,73,000/- was made to the Bank towards a one-time settlement. 2. At the time she stood as a guarantor for the loan extended by the Bank, Smt. Bilquis Jabeen had deposited three documents relating to her property with the Bank and created equitable mortgage by depositing the said documents with the Bank. The aforesaid three documents were: - the original sale deed dated 28.09.1959 executed in favour of the mortgagor;
- EC dated 08.03.1995 from 28.09.1959 to 08.03.1995; and
- EC dated 15.02.1996 from 08.03.1995 to 15.02.1996.
3. It appears that Shri Mohammed Abdul Moqeet s/o Smt. Bilquis Jabeen sent a letter dated 24.11.2006 to the Bank, seeking return of the aforesaid documents. Vide letter dated 29.11.2006, the Bank informed him that, as per the rules, the owner of the property has to sign the equitable mortgage register, before taking delivery of the documents of title, and since it had not been done, they were unable to release the documents of title to any party other than Smt. Bilquis Jabeen. The Bank expressed its willingness to handover the documents of title as well as other loan documents taken from Smt. Bilquis Jabeen, provided either she appeared or a letter was taken from her, authorizing another person to receive the documents on her behalf. 4. The case of the Appellant Bank is that pursuant to the aforesaid communication Smt. Bilquis Jabeen appeared before the Bank officers on 04.12.2006 and took all the three documents referred to above, including the original sale deed dated 28.09.1959. The case of the Complainant on the other hand is that the Bank had delivered three documents which were Ex. A-10 to A-12 before the State Commission but had not returned the original title deed, which was Ex. A-10 in O.S. 1293/2001. 5. Noticing that the relevant entry in the equitable mortgage register though signed by Smt. Bilquis Jabeen on the first page had not been signed on the second page, where the description of the documents was recorded, the State Commission held that the original sale deed dated 28.09.1959, along with its annexure, had not been returned to the Complainant and accordingly directed the Bank to issue a certificate that the original sale deed was deposited by Smt. Bilquis Jabeen towards mortgage against loan, which had been completely discharged by her but had not been returned to her by the Bank. The Bank was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the Complainant. Being aggrieved with the order of the State Commission, the Bank is before us by way of this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the Appellant Bank has pointed out that in fact the photocopies of pages 40 and 41 of the paper-book are the copies of the same pages and of the same folio in the register of the Bank, the photocopy of page 40 being of the left side portion and the photocopy at page 41 of the right side portion. He has also pointed that both these photocopies pertain to folio 88 and the said folio number was printed on the right side of the page. 7. It is not in dispute that the mortgagor had deposited only three documents with the Appellant Bank. It is also not in dispute that three documents were received by her from the Bank on 04.12.2006. Since the original title deed dated 28.09.1959 was one of the three documents deposited with the Bank, it is quite obvious that it was one of the documents which the Bank had returned to her on 04.12.2006. Had Smt. Bilquis Jabeen deposited more than three documents and been returned only three documents, she could have claimed that one document had not been returned to her but when she had deposited only three documents and had received the same number of documents, it would be difficult for us to accept that original title deed dated 28.09.1959 was not received by her from the Bank. 8. We also notice that the acknowledgment dated 04.12.2006 is signed by Smt. Bilquis Jabeen in English. The learned counsel for the Appellant Bank states that as far as he understands the entire endorsement dated 04.12.2006 is in her hand. Even if we proceed on the basis that the aforesaid endorsement was in the hand of someone other than Smt. Bilquis Jabeen, the fact remains that she had signed it and this is not the case of the Complainant that she did not know English or that the import of the aforesaid acknowledgment was not explained to her at the time she visited the Branch of the Appellant Bank on 04.12.2006. The very fact that she signed it in English is a clear indicator that she was well conversant with English language and, therefore, even if the endorsement was made by another person but signed by her, she would be bound by the same. The said endorsement clearly records that Smt. Bilquis Jabeen had received all documents submitted with the Syndicate Bank, N.S. Branch on 10.04.1996 and there was no other claim. It was also stated in the endorsement that there were total three documents. Had Smt. Bilquis Jabeen not received the title deed dated 28.09.1959, the said endorsement would not have been made, acknowledging the receipt of the three documents, which Smt. Bilquis Jabeen had deposited with the Bank. Thus, the express acknowledgment in the said endorsement of Smt. Bilquis Jabeen totally belies the case set up in the complaint and clearly shows that she had received all the documents, which she had deposited with the Bank, including the original title deed dated 28.09.1959 along with the site plan annexed to the said title deed. 9. For the reasons stated above, we are unable to sustain the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The same is hereby set aside and the complaint is dismissed. 10. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. |
