Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 15 (AP)

J. Jayalakshmamma v. State Bank of India

2019-02-06

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : G. SHYAM PRASAD, J. 1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not releasing the gold ornaments pledged by her father late V. Marlpudi Reddy vide Gold Loan Account Nos. 32525338672, 32649726006 and 32645235182 inspite of repayment of the loans by the petitioner, and in insisting her to produce Court order in proof of entitlement, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the respondents to release the gold ornaments under the above gold loan accounts to the petitioner forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. C. Subodh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the only daughter of late V. Marlpudi Reddy and Penchalamma. The mother of the petitioner i.e. Penchalamma died more than 20 years back. During the lifetime of late V. Marlpudi Reddy, he obtained gold loan from the 2nd respondent Bank by pledging gold ornaments under three gold loan account Nos. 32525338672, 32649726006 and 32645235182. The father of the petitioner i.e. late V. Marlpudi Reddy died on 30.12.2012 without discharging the gold loans. The petitioner is the sole legal heir of her late father. After the death of her father, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and intimated about the death of her father and she cleared the gold loans availed by her father and asked to return the gold ornaments pledged by her father. The 2nd respondent had demanded proof of her relationship with her father. She produced the Family Member Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Buchinaidu Kandriga, which shows that she is the daughter of late V. Marlpudi Reddy, before the 2nd respondent along with the receipts of repayment of the loans. The 2nd respondent vide letter, dated 09.04.2014, asked the petitioner to obtain suitable orders from the competent Court of law for settlement of the claims. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no third party claim over the property and that there are no other legal heirs and that the petitioner is ready to furnish an indemnity bond if required by the 2nd respondent and therefore, he requested to direct the 2nd respondent to release the property to the petitioner. 5. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has to obtain a succession certificate in order to take back the gold ornaments pledged by her father in the Bank and since the petitioner has not produced the succession certificate, the respondents have not released the gold ornaments to her in spite of clearing the loans. 6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner has obtained the loans from the 2nd respondent by pledging the gold ornaments under three gold loan accounts. There is no doubt with regard to clearing of all the three gold loan accounts by the petitioner and after clearing the loans only, the petitioner is entitled for taking back the gold ornaments pledged by her father. The petitioner claims that she is the only legal heir of her father and she has also filed family member certificate obtained from the Tahasildar, Buchinaidu Kandriga, showing that she is the daughter of late V. Marlpudi Reddy. A perusal of the Family Members Certificate reveals that the following persons are the family members of deceased V. Marlpudi Reddy: 1 J. Narasimha Reddy Son-in-law 2 J. Jayalakshmi Daughter 3 J.Samyuktha Grand Daughter 4 J.Sahithya Grand Daughter 7. As per the said Family Members Certificate, there are four family members of the deceased. The petitioner has to obtain a no objection certificate from the other family members to submit the same to the bank officials for release of the property. The petitioner has also stated that she would execute an indemnity bond for the release of the gold ornaments. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Orissa High Court in Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Puri Branch v. Satyaban Pathal AIR 1989 Orissa 236, wherein in paragraph No. 12, the Court came to a conclusion, which reads as under: "...the claimants should not be driven to litigation since the bank can protect itself by obtaining an indemnity bond from the person who comes forward to redeem the pledged ornaments. In case, the Bank officers have doubt, they can issue a public notice inviting objections to such claim and where there would be dispute relating to the legal representation, letters of administration may be required." 9. In the instant case, the petitioner came forward and cleared the loans to the Bank. The petitioner has also filed the Family Members Certificate. In case, the Bank officers have doubt, they can issue a public notice inviting objections to such claim and where there would be dispute relating to the legal representation, letters of administration may be required." 9. In the instant case, the petitioner came forward and cleared the loans to the Bank. The petitioner has also filed the Family Members Certificate. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to produce the following documents to the Bank officials for release of the gold ornaments pledged by her father: i. Family Member Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Buchinaidu Kandriga. ii. An Indemnity bond for the value of the property. iii. No objection certificate from the other family members by way of a notarized affidavit to that effect. 10. On receipt of the above documents, the respondents shall return the property to the petitioner by following the ratio laid down in the decision in Satyban Pathal's case AIR 1989 Orissa 236 (supra.) 11. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.