By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed against the Opposite Parties to return back the title deed pledged as a security by deceased mother of the Complainant.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the son of the deceased who pledged 37 cents of land property in the Opposite Party's bank and availed Rs. 20,000/- as loan. The Complainants mother was died and a will was executed by the deceased No.218/09 and the entire land holdings as per this will was bequeathed to her son the Complainant. The Complainant is in possession of the land property remitting the tax and absolutely in enjoyment possession ownership of the poverty. The Complainant remitted amount towards the entire loan liability and closed it. Upon demand of the Complainant to return the title deed pledged as security, the Opposite Parties are not ready for it. Reasons stated by the Opposite Parties are that the brother of the Complainant had complained to the Opposite Party on the genuineness varsity of the will. The withholding of the title deed pledged by the deceased mother of the Complainant to the legal heir in pursuance of the will is a deficiency in service.

3. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties to return back the title deed No.1735/1993 to the Complainant along with cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

4. The Opposite Party filed version in brief it is as follows:- The Complainant suppressed the material facts. The property pledged as a security was not given back to the Complainant on the ground that the legal heirs of the property have not entrusted the Complainant to take back the title deed kept as a security. On 22.01.2011 the Complainant's brother Rajagopalan gave an application to this Opposite Party that the will said to be executed by mother would be influenced and having no legal validity. The genuineness of the will said to be executed is under dispute and the Opposite Party was not in a position to return back the title deed pledged as security on this ground alone. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

5. The points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties not returning the title deed kept as a security to the Complainant.?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Party. Exts. A1 to A3, B1 and B2 are the documents produced. The oral testimony of the Complainant and Opposite Party is also tendered. The dispute in issue is in respect of the withholding of the title deed kept as security by the deceased mother of the Complainant. Ext.A1 is the notary attested copy of the will. The extent of the property is 37 cents of land property in N.S. 2333 in survey No.1A1A1A1A1A1A1 sub division No.2 and 3 cents in of land property in old survey No.1060, 889, 888, 887 are bequeathed to the Complainant by the deceased mother on 17^th September 2009 one of the witness in this will is one Ayilakkad Sasidharan the brother of the Complainant. The Complainant remitted land tax on 10.01.2011 the receipt of the amount remitted towards the loan of Lakshmi Rs.15,423/- is also produced. The Opposite Party withhold the delivery of the title deed to the Complainant followed by a complaint by the brother of the Complainant named Rajagopalan. The genuineness of the will is challenged in the application of this Rajagopalan. How ever no

documents is produced by the Opposite Party or any other connected parties that the genuiness of the will executed by the deceased mother is under question in competent court. In the oral testimony of the Opposite Party it is also deposed that they have not received any order from the competent court on the genuineness and varsity of the will executed. The withholding of the title deed to the Complainant is in the absence of any order from authority. On perusal of the documents and oral testimony of the Opposite Party there is no pendancy of any order of the competent court nor any case is filed on the legal heir ship of the property in any competent court. The title deed pledged by the deceased mother of the Complainant is to be given back to the Complainant who found to be pledged responsible for hold it.  In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to return the title deed pledged by Lakshmi to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. If any liability towards the loan amount is yet to be closed it is to be cleared by the Complainant and there is no order as to cost and compensation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 19^th November 2011.

Date of filing:05.07.2011.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N X I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. A. Chandran Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. M.O. Mathew. Manager, Sulthan Bathery Service Co-operative

Bank Ltd.,

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Attested copy of Will.

A2. Receipt. dt:10.01.2011.

A3. Receipt. dt:21.01.2011.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. Complaint. dt:22.01.2011.

B2. Letter.