## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN**
## **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/30TH JYAISHTA 1934**
**WP(C).No. 15103 of 2007 (W) ---------------------------**
**PETITIONER(S): --------------------------**
**THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION LTD.NO.4330, P.B.NO.1896, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.**
**BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM**
**RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------**
**1. GEETHA KUMARI PILLAI, W/O.LATE RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI,**
**KRISHNA NILAYAM, PUTHUCAUD, CHAVARA PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.**
**2. CHAVARA BLOCK RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.Q.812, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**
**3. THE LOK AYUKTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.PARAMESWARAN NAIR R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**Kss**
## **WPC.NO.15103/2007 W**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
- **P1: COPY OF THE MORTGAGE DEED EXECUTED BYTHE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.**
- **P2: COPY OF THE DEED OF MORTGAGE EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.**
- **P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.1150/2006 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 10/05/06.**
- **P4: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.**
- **P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO.1150/2006 DTD. 10/04/07.**
- **P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.612/2003 DTD. 15/11/2005.**
## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:**
- **R1(A): LETTER FROM JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM DTD. 1/7/2004.**
- **R1(B): RECEIPT ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT ON CLOSING THE LOAN THROUGH D.D. TO PETITIONER DTD. 5/10/04.**
**R1(C): LETTER ADDRESSED TO PETITIONER DTD. 4/06/05.**
**/TRUE COPY/**
**P.A.TO JUDGE**
**Kss**
## **S. SIRI JAGAN, J.**
**- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.15103 of 2007**
**- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20[th] day of June, 2012**
## **J U D G M E N T**
The petitioner is the Kerala State Co-operative Housing Federation Limited. They are aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of the Kerala Upa Lok Ayukta, whereby the petitioner was directed to return the title deeds of properties belonging to the 1[st] respondent, which the 1[st] respondent had deposited with the 2[nd] respondent with an intention to create a mortgage in favour of the 2[nd] respondent, as security for due repayment of loan amounts taken by the 1[st] respondent from the 2[nd] respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that the money for advancing the loan by the 2[nd] respondent to the 1[st] respondent was advanced by the petitioner and as a security for repayment of the money advanced by the petitioner to the 2[nd] respondent, the 2[nd] respondent deposited the title deeds of the properties belonging to the 1[st] respondent with the petitioner. Therefore, until the
W.P.(C)No.15103 of 2007
**-2-**
2[nd] respondent pays off the amounts due from the 2[nd] respondent to the petitioner, the petitioner is not bound to return the title deeds of properties belonging to the 1[st] respondent to the 1[st] respondent is the contention raised. It is submitted that the Upa Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the 1[st] respondent. According to the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent was all along aware that the money for advancing loan by the 2[nd] respondent to the 1[st] respondent came from the petitioner and it is as security for repayment by the 2[nd] respondent to the petitioner the money so advanced the title deeds have been deposited with the petitioner. That being so, the Lok Ayukta could not have directed the petitioner to return the title deeds of properties belonging to the 1[st] respondent to the 1[st] respondent. The petitioner heavily relies on a Full Bench decision of this Court in **John v. Liquidator [2006 (1) KLT 11 (F.B.)]** . He points out that in that decision this Court has held that a writ petition seeking direction to a Co-operative Society to return the
W.P.(C)No.15103 of 2007
**-3-**
mortgaged title deeds of the property to obtain housing loan is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
3. The 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned orders of the Upa Lok Ayukta. The 2[nd] respondent has not chosen to file any counter affidavit to contest the matter.
4. At the outset, I am of opinion that the Full Bench decision in John's case is not applicable to the facts of this case. This writ petition is not one filed by a person whose documents have ben deposited with a Co-operative Society seeking direction to the Society to return the documents. This writ petition has been filed by a Co–operative Society challenging the order of the Lok Ayukta directing return of the title deeds to the 1[st] respondent. So what I have to consider is whether the Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to direct the return of the documents. I also do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that since the 1[st] respondent
W.P.(C)No.15103 of 2007
**-4-**
was aware of Ext.P2 and the fact of advancing money to the 2[nd] respondent, she is bound by Ext.P2 agreement between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent. The 1[st] respondent can be bound only by an agreement signed by her with the petitioner, which she has not executed. The fact that the 1[st] respondent was aware of the dealings between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent does not ipso facto make the 1[st] respondent liable for any obligation of the 2[nd] respondent to the petitioner in respect of the amounts advanced by the petitioner to the 2[nd] respondent.
5. The next question is as to whether the Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to deal with a complaint filed by the 1[st] respondent. I am inclined to hold this issue also in favour of the 1[st] respondent. The Lok Ayukta can entertain a complaint against a Co-operative Society if the Cooperative Society is guilty of maladministration. If the petitioner is withholding title deeds belonging to the 1[st] respondent which has not been deposited by the 1[st] respondent with the petitioner with intention to create a
W.P.(C)No.15103 of 2007
**-5-**
mortgage over the properties covered by the title deeds, I am of opinion that, that certainly amounts to maladministration. In this connection, it must be noted that as far as the petitioner is concerned, the title deeds in their hands are absolutely worthless for them. Handing over of the title deeds belonged to the 1[st] respondent by the 2[nd] respondent to the petitioner does not create any mortgage in respect of the property in favour of the petitioner. In fact it does not even create any obligation whatsoever on the 1[st] respondent as against the petitioner. If the 1[st] respondent has paid off the entire amounts taken by her as loan from the 2[nd] respondent, then the 2[nd] respondent is bound to return the title deeds which were deposited by the 1[st] respondent with the 2[nd] respondent to the 1[st] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent has no manner of right to withhold the same on the ground that they have deposited it with the petitioner. In fact the 2[nd] respondent had no right to hand over the title deeds of the properties belonging to the 1[st] respondent to the petitioner also, doing
W.P.(C)No.15103 of 2007
**-6-**
which also amounts to maladministration. Insofar as the 1[st] respondent has not deposited the documents with the petitioner, the petitioner has no manner of right whatsoever to retain the title deeds. In fact, if the 1[st] respondent is able to find out a buyer, who is prepared to purchase the property even without the title deeds, which are with the petitioner, the petitioner cannot do anything against such sale and such sale would be valid like any other sale. Further in the event of such a sale the petitioner cannot do anything against the property for recovery of amounts due from the 2[nd] respondent to the petitioner. All what the petitioner can do by retaining the title deeds is to inconvenience the 1[st] respondent, that too without legal justification. Therefore, I do not think that there can be two opinions as to the fact that the petitioner is retaining the title deeds of properties belonging to the 1[st] respondent without any corresponding obligation by the 1[st] respondent to the petitioner, which is clearly an instance of maladministration. It is not disputed before me that a
W.P.(C)No.15103 of 2007
**-7-**
Co-operative Society comes within the ambit of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. When the 1[st] respondent was able to prove maladministration on the part of the petitioner then the Lok Ayukta is certainly entitled to exercise its jurisdiction under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act to give relief to the 1[st] respondent, which only has been done by passing Ext.P5 order. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy//
P.A. TO JUDGE
shg/
