D.o.F:22/05/2013
D.o.O:28/10/2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.143/13
Dated this, the 28th day of October 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Mrs.Jayalakshmi, W/o late Shivappa Naik,
R/at Pilikudlu House, Po. Nekraje, Kasaragod. : Complainant
(Adv.Anantharama.P)
1.The Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank,
Chattanchal Branch, Po.Thekkil,Kasaragod. Dt. : Opposite parties
(Adv.K.N.Shetty)
2. Sumathi Naik, W/o late Shivappa Naik,
3.Pushparaj,
4.Manjunath
5.Poonam, Ops 2 to 5 are
R/at Devika House, Alape, Kembar, Padil,Mangalore.
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:
That the complainant is widow of Shivappa Naik and Shivappa Naik was an employee of Ist opposite party and Ist opposite party alleging that Shivappa Naik had availed a loan from the Ist opposite party and loan amount with interest is adjusted from the account of the complainant. According to the complainant shivappa Naik died on 9/5/2009 leaving behind the complainant and her two children who are still minor. After the death of shivappa Naik when the complainant had to make arrangements to get the death benefits one Sumathi Naik claims to be one of the wives and one Pushparaj, Manjunath and Poonam are alleged to be the children of shivappa Naik and filed petition under Sec.372 of Indian Succession Act as per Sec No.3/2011 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mangalore by making the complainant as one of the respondents and the said dispute was settled in the said court and joint memo was filed by the petitioner and respondents and agreed to give the PF account and gratuity amount to the complainant and in total Rs.5,18,130/- due from Vijaya Bank in which Shivappa Naik was working. On the basis of the joint memo the Principal Senior Civil Judge passed an order in terms of the compromise petition. On production of the said order Ist opposite party agreed to release the entire amount in favour of the complainant and transferred the said amount to the complainant’s SB account in the very same bank. From that amount Rs.1,56,188/- has been deducted by Ist opposite and adjusted to close the loan account. Subsequently she came to know that her husband Shivappa Naik availed a housing loan by depositing title deeds of the property. Then the complainant demanded to return the title deeds of the property. But the Ist opposite party was not ready to return back the title deeds to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief.
Ist opposite party served notice and filed their version stating that he is ready and willing to return the title deeds of the property deposited by Sivappa Naik to his legal heirs only on condition that all legal heirs appear before the bank and to authorize one among them to collect the title deeds from the bank. Ist opposite party contended that the other legal heirs of late shivappa Naik are necessary parties to this complaint.
As per the contentions of Ist opposite party , opposite parties 2 to 5 are subsequently impleaded and they appeared through counsel and filed their version. According to opposite parties 2 to 5 they are also co-owners and co-sharers in respect of the properties left behind by late Shivappa Naik and therefore they are also entitled for the custody of the title deeds and the title deed to be returned to the opposite parties Nos.2 to 5.
After filing the version the case was considered in the adalath. But the opposite parties 2 to 5 were absent. Subsequently the complaint was posted for hearing the opposite parties 2 to 5 were absent. Heard the counsel for complainant and Ist opposite party. When the case was posted for hearing the Ist opposite party produced the subject matter of the complainant i.e the title deed and other documents before the Forum.
We heard the counsel for both the complainant and Ist opposite party. After hearing the counsel for both sides we are of the opinion that this Forum is not a proper Forum to decide the right of the property. But considering the nature of the case the interference of the Forum is necessary. Hence we are of the view that the custody of the title deed will not get the entire right over the property. If one of the legal heirs of late Shivappa Naik keep the title deed the other legal heirs will not loose their right over the property. Moreover all legal heirs cannot take custody of the documents. Here the Ist opposite party released the amount from the account of the complainant and adjusted the loan amount of late Shivappa Naik. Considering all those aspects we are of the opinion that complainant can keep the documents in her custody for and on behalf of all the legal heirs of late Shivappa. Now the documents involved in this complaint are before the Forum. Hence we direct the office to give the original title deed with other documents to the complainant after getting a certified copy of the same and office is further directed to give the certified copy so obtained to the opposite parties 2 to 5. The office is directed to comply the above order only after 30 days of receipt of the copy of order by both parties. Hence the complaint is closed accordingly without cost.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
