Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 81220 (KAR)

SRI. NILESH N.SHAH v. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

WP/13398/2023 · 2025-10-23

E S Indiresh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41838 WP No. 13398 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.13398 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. NILESH N.SHAH SON OF LATE NAROTTAM C SHAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, M/S KPC DISTRIBUTORS LLP, 37/2, KHADER SHARIF GARDEN, 4TH CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION M.G. ROAD BRANCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER 2. SRI RAFIQ AHMED MEHKRI SON OF THE LATE GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN MEHKRI, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT NO D-8, J.M.P ROAD CROSS, OLD SANTHEPET, MYSORE- 570 024. 3. SRI MOHAMMED ALI, S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41838 WP No. 13398 of 2023 4. MS . SYEDA SABA D/O LATE SYED PARVEZ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 5. SRI SYED OWAIS S/O LATE SYED PARVEZ, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO 23, BEHIND HMS COMPLEX, CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR. T., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED; SRI. B.N.ANANTHA NARAYANA, ADV. FOR R3 TO R5; ------ THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R-1 TO RELEASE AND HAND OVER THE ORIGINAL TITLE DEEDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO THE PETITIONER AS SOUGHT IN THE LEGAL NOTICE DTD 24/03/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41838 WP No. 13398 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this petition, the Petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent-Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) to release and hand over the original Title Deeds and other documents in respect of the property in question as per the legal notice dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure- G). 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, by referring to the Deed of Absolute Sale and Conveyance dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure-C), wherein the Petitioner herein has purchased the schedule property from Respondent No. 2 and the property in question was mortgaged in favour of Respondent No.1, and also by inviting the attention of the Court to the order dated 05.09.2017 in W.P.No.62033 of 2016 (Annexure-F), submitted that, in view of the changed circumstance, as the petitioner herein has purchased the property from Respondent No. 2 and further in view of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the petitioner being the owner of the larger extent of the land is entitled for the title - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41838 WP No. 13398 of 2023 deeds which is in the custody of Respondent No.1 and accordingly, he sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent No. 1-KSFC to release and hand over the original title deeds and other documents in respect of the aforesaid property in question. 3. Per contra, Sri.B.N.Anantha Narayana, learned counsel for Respondent No.4, invited the attention of the Court to paragraph No.4 of W.P.No.62033 of 2016, wherein, this Court has observed about the third party rights in respect of the subject land is concerned and also invited the attention of the Court to the suit filed in OS No.8091 of 2022 on the file of the City Civil Court at Bengaluru (Annexure-R.2) wherein the contesting respondents herein have sought for partition and separate possession in respect of the subject land. It is further argued that Respondents No.3 to 5 herein are not parties to the power of attorney, based on which the Registered Sale Deed at Annexure-C has been made. 4. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for Respondents No.4 and 5, perused the order passed in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41838 WP No. 13398 of 2023 W.P.No.62033/16, more particularly paragraph 4, which reads as under : "4. As already noticed, the mortgage was made by petitioner No.1 along with her husband, though, petitioner Nos.1 to 8, claim right in respect of the property. In any case, at this stage, directing the respondent to return the documents to General Power of attorney holder of mortgager and to petitioner No.9, would not be justified. However, since the said mortgager is also before this Court in this petition, all that would be directed herein is to permit the petitioner to file an appropriate representation seeking return of the original documents and if petitioner No.1 personally approaches the respondent for return of documents relating to secured asset to General Power of Attorney holder and petitioner No.9 and the acknowledgment for return of the documents be executed by petitioner No.1, in that circumstance, the respondent shall take steps to return the documents on proper acknowledgement being obtained, to the GPA holder in the presence of the petitioners. In addition, an indemnity bond may also be obtained by the respondent undertaking to indemnify them in the event of any other claim is made by the third party. Such consideration of the representation for return of documents shall be made as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four weeks from the date on which the representation is made." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41838 WP No. 13398 of 2023 5. On perusal, it is apparent that, this Court after considering the claim made by the contesting respondents herein, has made an observation with regard to the third party rights created in respect of the subject matter of the land in question. 6. In that view of the matter, as there is disputed question of facts involved in this writ petition, I am of the view that a Writ of Mandamus does not lie against Respondent No.1 to release and hand over the original title deeds in favour of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner has not made out a case for interference in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40