The Mananging Director,Pragathi Gramina Bank V/S Naveen S/o C.H.Gopalkrishna - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/09/23

Naveen S/o C.H.Gopalkrishna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Mananging Director,Pragathi Gramina Bank - Opp.Party(s)

C.Kesava Rao

16 Nov 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/23

Naveen S/o C.H.Gopalkrishna						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Mananging Director,Pragathi Gramina Bank The Manager,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Naveen against Opposites 1 & 2 Pragathi Gramina Bank for to direct them to return the original sale deed of him bearing document No. 2112/85-86 dt. 25-03-86 pertaining to his mortgage loan bearing Sy.No. 65/2 of Jakkaladinni village and to direct them to pay compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, his father borrowed loan from the opposites Bank in Raichur by depositing the title deeds for the said loan by mortgaging of his land. His father paid entire loan amount with interest, but opposites are not returning the sale deed, in spite of several requests by his father, he also requested opposites to return the original sale deed, but they shown their negligence and thereby both of them are found guilty under deficiency in their services. 3. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed written version by admitting the loan borrowed by father of complainant and full satisfaction of it. It is denied by the opposites that they have not received any title deeds, more particularly the sale deed for the loan, there was no mortgage deed executed in respect of the said loan. It was a simple loan by creating charge over the land, they have taken any ROR Extract at the time of advancing the loan, there was no deficiency in service on their part and thereby they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, his father executed mortgage deed in depositing of title deeds of his land bearing Sy.No. 65/2 to the extent of 5 acres to the opposites bank at the time of availing loan and thereafter he satisfied the loan but opposites are not returning the sale deed of his land, in spite of several requests and thereby they are negligent and found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the father of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed he was noted as PW-2. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 are marked. 7. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the Branch Manager, Pragathi Gramina Bank, Sirwar was filed he was noted as RW-1 and affidavit-evidence of Branch Manager of Pragathi Gramina Bank, Manvi also filed who is noted as RW-2. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 are marked. 8. In the instant case availment of loan by the father of the complainant from opposite bank and satisfaction of the said loan by him are not in dispute. The only point of dispute in between the parties is as to whether the complainant father was handed over the original sale deed of his land bearing Sy.No. 65/2 at Jakkaladinni village, while executing mortgage deed for the said loan amount. Opposites are denying the fact that they have not received any title deeds, more particularly the sale deed of the said survey number at the time of sanctioning the loan, as the loan advanced to the father of the complainant by creating charge over the said loan. There was no execution of mortgage of title deeds as contended by the complainant and thereby there was no deficiency in service on their part. 9. In order to prove the facts of the case of complainant, he has relied on documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8. Among the said document Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of sale deed. Ex.P-2 is the No due certificate issued by the opposites. Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-5 are the letters written by the complainant to the opposites. Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7 are the challans for having paid the amount and Ex.P-8 is the loan book. 10. In pursuance of the said documents, the documents of opposites are important documents to ascertain the real dispute in between the parties. Ex.R-1 is the letter written by the opposite bank dt. 29-09-09 wherein they have specifically stated that they have not received registered sale deed of the said survey number at the time of advancing the loan. Ex.R-2 is the another letter dt. 06-02-09 wherein the same fact is stated. Ex.R-3 is the copy of the loan application. Ex.R-4 is the copy of the memorandum of agreement for the said loan. Ex.R-5 is the detail agreement annexed to Ex.R-4. 11. On perusal of the above said documents, we can ascertain one thing us that the loan advanced to the father of the complainant was an agricultural loan, loan application given by father is at Ex.R-3. The contents of memorandum of agreement Ex.R-4 & Ex.R-5 clearly goes to show that the loan advanced to the father of the complainant was simple loan by keeping charge over the said land. In support of this fact, the Encumbrance Certificate from 01-04-92 to 20-07-04 clearly shows that it was not a loan by depositing of title deeds as contended by the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above the documents of the complainant are not sufficient to hold that his father borrowed loan by executing mortgage deed of depositing title deeds of the land. Hence there was no reason for to the father of the complainant to hand over the original registered sale deed of the said land to the opposite Bank. No other documentary evidences out coming to hold that the loan availed by the father of the complainant PW-1 was of mortgage deed of title deeds, hence the complainant not established the fact that these opposites have committed the deficiency in their services towards him accordingly we answered Point No-1 in negative. 12. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos.1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. All the parties to this complaint are hereby directed to bear their own respective cost. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 16-11-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Naveen against Opposites 1 & 2 Pragathi Gramina Bank for to direct them to return the original sale deed of him bearing document No. 2112/85-86 dt. 25-03-86 pertaining to his mortgage loan bearing Sy.No. 65/2 of Jakkaladinni village and to direct them to pay compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, his father borrowed loan from the opposites Bank in Raichur by depositing the title deeds for the said loan by mortgaging of his land. His father paid entire loan amount with interest, but opposites are not returning the sale deed, in spite of several requests by his father, he also requested opposites to return the original sale deed, but they shown their negligence and thereby both of them are found guilty under deficiency in their services. 3. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed written version by admitting the loan borrowed by father of complainant and full satisfaction of it. It is denied by the opposites that they have not received any title deeds, more particularly the sale deed for the loan, there was no mortgage deed executed in respect of the said loan. It was a simple loan by creating charge over the land, they have taken any ROR Extract at the time of advancing the loan, there was no deficiency in service on their part and thereby they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, his father executed mortgage deed in depositing of title deeds of his land bearing Sy.No. 65/2 to the extent of 5 acres to the opposites bank at the time of availing loan and thereafter he satisfied the loan but opposites are not returning the sale deed of his land, in spite of several requests and thereby they are negligent and found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the father of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed he was noted as PW-2. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 are marked. 7. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the Branch Manager, Pragathi Gramina Bank, Sirwar was filed he was noted as RW-1 and affidavit-evidence of Branch Manager of Pragathi Gramina Bank, Manvi also filed who is noted as RW-2. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 are marked. 8. In the instant case availment of loan by the father of the complainant from opposite bank and satisfaction of the said loan by him are not in dispute. The only point of dispute in between the parties is as to whether the complainant father was handed over the original sale deed of his land bearing Sy.No. 65/2 at Jakkaladinni village, while executing mortgage deed for the said loan amount. Opposites are denying the fact that they have not received any title deeds, more particularly the sale deed of the said survey number at the time of sanctioning the loan, as the loan advanced to the father of the complainant by creating charge over the said loan. There was no execution of mortgage of title deeds as contended by the complainant and thereby there was no deficiency in service on their part. 9. In order to prove the facts of the case of complainant, he has relied on documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8. Among the said document Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of sale deed. Ex.P-2 is the No due certificate issued by the opposites. Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-5 are the letters written by the complainant to the opposites. Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7 are the challans for having paid the amount and Ex.P-8 is the loan book. 10. In pursuance of the said documents, the documents of opposites are important documents to ascertain the real dispute in between the parties. Ex.R-1 is the letter written by the opposite bank dt. 29-09-09 wherein they have specifically stated that they have not received registered sale deed of the said survey number at the time of advancing the loan. Ex.R-2 is the another letter dt. 06-02-09 wherein the same fact is stated. Ex.R-3 is the copy of the loan application. Ex.R-4 is the copy of the memorandum of agreement for the said loan. Ex.R-5 is the detail agreement annexed to Ex.R-4. 11. On perusal of the above said documents, we can ascertain one thing us that the loan advanced to the father of the complainant was an agricultural loan, loan application given by father is at Ex.R-3. The contents of memorandum of agreement Ex.R-4 & Ex.R-5 clearly goes to show that the loan advanced to the father of the complainant was simple loan by keeping charge over the said land. In support of this fact, the Encumbrance Certificate from 01-04-92 to 20-07-04 clearly shows that it was not a loan by depositing of title deeds as contended by the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above the documents of the complainant are not sufficient to hold that his father borrowed loan by executing mortgage deed of depositing title deeds of the land. Hence there was no reason for to the father of the complainant to hand over the original registered sale deed of the said land to the opposite Bank. No other documentary evidences out coming to hold that the loan availed by the father of the complainant PW-1 was of mortgage deed of title deeds, hence the complainant not established the fact that these opposites have committed the deficiency in their services towards him accordingly we answered Point No-1 in negative. 12. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos.1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. All the parties to this complaint are hereby directed to bear their own respective cost. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 16-11-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.