By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-
The complaint filed against the opposite party for non release of the title deed pledged.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant is the wife and legal heir of deceased Muruganathan RC owner of vehicle KL 12 B 6446. This vehicle was purchased under finance provided by the opposite party, for which the title deed of land property in an extent of 6 1/2 cents Survey No.507/2 was kept as security. The husband of the complainant died in a vehicle accident and the deceased Muruganathan was the RC owner. The vehicle loan was closed by the complainant for which the complainant had struggled a lot. After closing the loan liability of the vehicle the widow complainant requested opposite party to release her title deed which was kept
in security. The opposite party was not ready to deliver the title deed pledged for the reason that the education loan availed for complainant's daughter was to be closed. Earlier to last settlement condition the opposite party informed the complainant that if the interest of the educational loan is cleared the title deed pledged as the security would be released to her. The complainant somehow managed to close almost the interest but even after the payment of Rs.20,157/- the education loan interest, the title deed pledged for the purchase of the vehicle was not released to her. The complaint filed is for an order directing the opposite party to deliver the original title deed No.2514/98 of SRO Kalpetta of the land property in survey No.507/2 to the complainant along with cost and compensation.
3. The opposite party filed version in short it is as follows: The complaint filed is not for
bonofied reasons. Muruganathan the late husband of the complainant availed loan from the opposite party of Rs.3,50,000/- for purchase of a car for which the land property in the Janmam Assignment deed No.2514/98 SRO Kalpetta in the name of the complainant was kept as security and it was to create an equitable mortgage of the said property that was pledged as collateral security for the medium term loan. The late husband of the complainant and his daughter born to the complainant availed a loan under Gyan Jyothi Education Loan Scheme in the limit up to Rs.2,12,000/- for her B pharm course in JSS college of pharmacy at Ooty in Tamilnadu. The loan was sanctioned to late Muruganathan who is represented by guardian being the daughter was minor. The property was also to be in equitable mortgage for the purpose of the education loan. On 29.11.2004 Rs.2,12,000/- was sanctioned as educational loan. An agreement was executed by the S. Muruganathan and her daughter for the term loan of education on 29.11.2004. The
complainant is a guarantor late S. Muruganathan and his daughter are the borrowers jointly and an agreement too was executed.
4. The agreement executed avers the liability of the executor and the guarantor. The complainant also covenanted for all the liabilities towards interest and principal due from the borrowers is recoverable. The loan was issued to the complainant's daughter under the guarantee and the terms of covenants agreed upon. The complainant also issued a letter to opposite party confirming the equitable mortgage made by her on 29.11.2004. After the death of Muruganathan in a vehicle accident on 14.12.2007 the opposite party waived Rs.94,577 from the loan liability and complainant closed the medium term car loan subsequently. The complainant has not discharged her liability in that circumstances a register lawyer notice was sent to the complainant demanding of the repayment of the loan amount with interest. In the absence of any response from the complainant the opposite party filed a suit in Subordinate Judge's Court Sulthan Bathery. The complainant and her child are liable to pay Rs.3,31,873 /- as on 17.03.2011. The liability of the borrowers from the date of 18.03.2011 is also to be cleared by the complainant and her daughter. The opposite party is not liable to deliver the title deeds in the absence of closing debts. The allegation of the complainant that the property is sold to an another person from him borrowed money for the payment of car loan and educational loan interest are nothing but false. The mortgaged land property cannot be sold without relinquishing loan liability. The complainant entitled to get back the title deeds which is kept in collateral security on the repayment of the principal along with interest and cost. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
5. The points in consideration are:-
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?.
2. Relief and cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2 :- The evidence consist of proof affidavit of complainant and opposite party and Ext.A1 to A7 and Ext.B1 to B10. The complainant's oral testimony is also taken in to consideration.
7. The dispute in issue is that the documents pledged in the opposite party bank is not returned back to the complainant. The complainant is having 6.5 cents of land property in
survey No.196/1C Resurvey No.507/2 in Kalpetta village that was deposited as collateral
security in the opposite party bank up on which loan was taken for the purchase of car. The complainant's late husband Muruganathan availed medium term loan of Rs.3,50.000/- for which the complainant is a guarantor. The title deed was deposited as security in the year 31.10.2003. An application for Gyan Jyothi Education Loan Scheme by the daughter of late Muruganathan and the wife complainant and they were given for a education loan of Rs.2,10,000/-. The education loan was given after the issuance of the medium term loan. Ext.B5 is the letter sent to opposite party by the complainant confirming the deposit of the title deed dated 01.11.2003. It is admitted by the complainant that the property of 6 ½ cents in the Janmam assignment deed No.2514/98 given as security. After the issuance of the Gyan Jyothi Education loan the complainant confirmed the deposit of the same Janmam assignment deed and it is extended to equitable mortgage for the education loan also. The liability admitted by the complainant in Ext.B6 memorandum
of extension equitable mortgage dated 30.11.2004 is Rs.5,62,000/-. The liability of the vehicle loan was admittedly closed. The question of return of the assignment deed is after the closing of the vehicle loan. The husband of the complainant Muruganathan died in a vehicle accident in 2007. The liability of the vehicle loan was closed after the death of the husband of the complainant. Ext.B4 is the guarantee agreement executed on 29.11.2004. The agreement specifies the undertaking of the guarantor and borrower for the advance of Rs.2,12,000/-. The complainant is a guarantor in this agreement signed in presence of late Muruganathan the husband. Ext.B10 is the attested copy of the plaint filed before the Subordinate Court Sulthan Bathery to recover the loan amount due from the complainant and others of Rs.3,31,873/- from the date of 11.03.2011 with interest till the date of realization. On examination of the complainant it is deposed that she had not gone to the bank for loan and signatures put in the loan agreement are not of her. According to her the liability of the education loan is not closed. The property was deposited as security only for the purpose of loan to purchase of the vehicle. Any how it is also admitted by the complainant that the property is kept as security at the time of availing vehicle loan. The complainant totally denied signatures put by her in the loan agreement. It is to be considered that the complainant is a guarantor of vehicle loan and education loan. The deposit of the Janmam assignment is also extended as equitable mortgage also for the education loan. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not returning the title deed that stands as security on deposit for the education loan.
In the result the complainant is dismissed and no Order as to cost.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 22nd December 2011.
Date of Filing:21.01.2011.
