Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner's sale deed document dated 14.12.1995 within stipulated time. 2. The petitioner and five others started a business in the name of 'Fine Weaves' registered as partnership firm. The terms of partnership was produced in writing as per the partnership deed dated 02.08.2004. According to the petitioner, activities of partnership firm and the accounts were not properly maintained by other partners. Therefore, he retired from the partnership on 15.02.2008 and filed Form A, under Rule 5 of Register of Firms Maintained under Section 59 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932. He also executed retirement deed dated 15.12.2008 and he retired on the same day. His Advocate gave a public notice in the newspaper Dhinathanthi about retirement of the petitioner in one issue of Dhinathanthi dated 19.04.2008. 3. After retirement, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondent to return the sale deed dated 14.12.1995, which was given as security for repayment of the loan. The first respondent promised to return the sale deed after obtaining permission from the Regional Office, Chennai. Contrary to the said promise, the first respondent did not return the sale deed but they sent notice to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of Securitization Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on 30.11.2011. 4. The property given by the other partners are more valuable than the petitioner's property. The amount due to the first respondent is fully secured by the other properties given as security. Then the said loans were secured by 7 items of property. After retirement, the petitioner is not liable to pay due on partnership firm. The first respondent has failed to return the sale deed dated 14.12.1995 with regard to the property of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief as stated supra. 5. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations made by the petitioner. The first respondent stated that M/s.Fine Weaves a partnership concern was sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.28.60 lakhs and Rs.10.00 lakhs as Soft Loan on 29.09.2004 to start a new weaving unit in a leasehold premise. 5. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations made by the petitioner. The first respondent stated that M/s.Fine Weaves a partnership concern was sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.28.60 lakhs and Rs.10.00 lakhs as Soft Loan on 29.09.2004 to start a new weaving unit in a leasehold premise. The said loans were secured by 7 items of property given as collateral securities and also a fixed deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh as security for the above loan. Out of 7 items, 4 items are owned by the partners and remaining 3 items are owned by third parties. According to the first respondent, from the beginning the partnership firm committed default in repayment and the concern could not run the unit due to poor supply of order and dispute among the partners. The partnership firm reconstituted the concern and there was change in management without their approval and the Corporation never approved the above changes. 6. In view of the default committed by the partnership firm to the loan account was foreclosed on 16.04.2010 and initiated recovery action. In the meantime, the partnership firm sought for approval for sale of the machinery to M/s.Royal Textile Engineering, Coimbatore for Rs.10,000/- lakhs. The head office of the respondent approved the same and the sale proceeds were given credit in the loan account. Thereafter, security deposit with interest was also given credit in the loan account. Even after adjusting the fixed deposit still there was due payable by the partnership firm to the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent initiated recovery action under Section 29 of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, and took possession of the same and resorted recovery action against the security property offered for the loan. The representation of the petitioner for release of document relating to his property was considered and informed about their norms and advised the petitioner to substitute any other property equal to that value of the property given by him. 7. The first respondent further submitted that they have sold the property bearing S.No.73/5, D.No.2/160B, Alagapuri Village (Land and building) and land measuring 10 cents in S.No.73/5 at Alagapuri Village owned by S.Lingaraj one of the partner for Rs.12.75 lakhs on the auction sale held on 09.01.2012 to Thiru. 7. The first respondent further submitted that they have sold the property bearing S.No.73/5, D.No.2/160B, Alagapuri Village (Land and building) and land measuring 10 cents in S.No.73/5 at Alagapuri Village owned by S.Lingaraj one of the partner for Rs.12.75 lakhs on the auction sale held on 09.01.2012 to Thiru. M.Pitchai Muthu and land and building measuring 15 cents in S.NO.73/5 and D.No.2/159, Alagapuri Village owned by S.Lingara for Rs.4.50 lakhs in the auction sale held on 09.01.2012 to Thiru.M.Sundaramurthy and land and building measuring 2098.31 sqft in S.No.73/3 wherein D.No.2/89 and 2/89A, Alagapuri Village, Measalur Road was sold to Thiru.S.Kandasamy for Rs.8.80 lakhs in the auction sale held on 09.01.2012. The auction sale was conducted as per the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act 1951 and it is denied that auction sale was conducted under State Financial Corporations Act and sale deeds were executed in favour of the auction purchaser on 16.03.2012 for all the 4 items of property and request of petitioner for returning sale deed cannot be complied with and therefore, the first respondent stated that the sale proceeds were given credit to the loan account and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that he has purchased the property and has taken symbolic possession on 20.11.2011 in accordance with provisions of State Financial Corporations Act. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent. I have carefully perused the records available on record. 10. From the records it is seen that the petitioner retired from the partnership firm on 15.02.2008 and filed Form A under Rule 5 of Register of Firms Maintained under Section 59 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and executed retirement deed on 15.02.2008 and published in one issue of Thinadhanthi on 19.02.2008. The petitioner has not sought for permission from the first respondent before retirement and partners have not obtained permission from the first respondent and the other partners have given No Objection to the first respondent for reconstitution of firm. 11. On the other hand, the petitioner was informed by the respondent to substitute any other properties of equal value to that of the petitioner's property. The petitioner failed to do so. 11. On the other hand, the petitioner was informed by the respondent to substitute any other properties of equal value to that of the petitioner's property. The petitioner failed to do so. The petitioner and others have taken loan from the first respondent for their business purpose and immovable properties belonging to the petitioner and other parties were maintained as collateral security. The retirement of the petitioner from the partnership firm will not absolve him from his liability to pay the dues to the partnership firm which accrued when he was partner. All the properties given as a security were sold by the first respondent. The second respondent has purchased the property of the petitioner given as security. The sale deed had been executed in favour of the second respondent. The petitioner has not challenged the auction dated 09.01.2012 when his property sold to the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer to return of sale deed is not sustainable and he is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition. 12. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. It is open to the petitioner to initiate further proceedings.