JUDGMENT :- 1. There are two petitioners viz., V.Varadarajan and V.Kamalam jointly filed the present Writ Petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, Namakkal, to accept the entire liability in one payment and release the Original Title Deed in respect of the property in S.No.137/2 of Vengamedu Street, Pothanur Village, Paramathyvelur Taluk and Survey No.211/3 of Punjai Idayar Melmugam Village, Paramathyvelur Taluk, to the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that originally one N.Marappan and M.Rajendran, who were the partners of one Siva Bakery, have mortgaged the property in question in the present Writ Petition in favour of the respondent-Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, Namakkal. After executing the mortgage deed, the said N.Marappan has also executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners immediately, on 07.07.2004 informed the respondent about their desire to discharge the entire liability whereupon, by letter dated 15.07.2004, followed by the proceedings dated 24.08.2004, the respondent agreed to accept the loan amount, but however, they informed the petitioners that the original title deeds will be handed over to the petitioners' vendor viz., N.Marappan. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have purchased the property from their vendor-N.Marappan undertaking to discharge the liability to the respondent, hence, it would be in the fitness of things for the respondent to accept the loan amount and release the original title deeds to the petitioners herein. As the respondent has not done so, the petitioners after writing several letters, vainfully and having left with no other remedy, approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition with the above mentioned prayer. 3. When the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being purchasers of the property from their vendor-N.Marappan, after paying the sale consideration with the understanding between the petitioners and their vendor that whatever the liability payable to the respondent-Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited will be discharged by the petitioners by stepping into the shoes of the petitioners' vendor, it is not open for the respondent to refuse to release the title deeds since the petitioners have purchased the property by way of sale deed with a clear-cut undertaking that the petitioners would deposit the entire liability which is emanated from the mortgage deed executed by the petitioners even to the respondent. 4. 4. In reply, Mr.V.Kalyanaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that both the petitioners have subsequently discharged the entire liability on the mortgage deed. Therefore, there is no difficulty for the respondent to release the title deeds in favour of the petitioners as there is no further liability to be taken care of by the petitioners. However, the difficulty faced by the respondent is the vendor has also addressed a letter to the respondent-Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, Namakkal, to return the title deeds. He being the original mortgagor, the respondent is bound to return the deeds to N.Marappan. 5. Though, the said submission appears to be reasonable, the reasons placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that when the petitioners-V.Varadarajan and V.Kamalam have jointly sent letters to the respondent after purchasing the property from Marapppan with an undertaking that both the petitioners would be clearing the entire liability by stepping into the shoes of the vendor-N.Marappan, the respondent-Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited is bound to return the title deeds to the petitioners only. In any event, whatever the liability arose out of the mortgage deed having been cleared by the respondent, the respondent-Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, Namakkal, is directed to return the title deeds to the petitioners. Further, it is also made clear that if there is any dispute between the petitioners and their vendor, it is for them to settle their claim in accordance with law, by approaching appropriate forum. 6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.