Telangana High Court: In a revision petition against an order dated 22-12-2022 (‘impugned order’) wherein an application filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) for return of original documents was dismissed, the Single Judge Bench of Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J, held that even though the original title deed had been produced before the Court by Respondent 1, petitioner being the rightful owner of the suit property and the title deed in question would be entitled to its return.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.35,00,000 from Respondent 1 for which a registered simple mortgage deed was executed. The petitioner had also handed over the original sale deed, which pertained to the suit schedule property, as part of the mortgage transaction. Due to default in repayment, Respondent 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.94,24,666 along with a declaration that the agreement of sale dated 15-5-2015 was null and void. During the pendency of the suit, the matter was amicably settled outside the Court. A memo to this effect was filed and the suit was dismissed as not pressed on 24-8-2020.
Following the dismissal, the petitioner had filed an application seeking return of the original mortgage deed and the original sale deed. The trial Court vide the impugned order had dismissed this application without issuing notice to Respondent 1, observing that as the documents were filed by Respondent 1, only he was entitled to their return under Order 13 Rule 9 of the CPC. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the present revision.
The petitioner had argued that since he was the owner of the suit schedule property and had settled the matter fully with Respondent 1, he was entitled to the return of his original title documents. He relied on the case of R Shankar v. E. Rammohan Chowdary 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 12822, which held that ownership of the document was a relevant factor for return, and the provision under Order XIII Rule 9 CPC must be interpreted in that light.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The primary issue before the Court was whether the petitioner, as the owner of the original documents, could seek their return from the Court, even though they were filed into Court by the opposite party.
The Court noted that while Order 13 Rule 9 CPC generally provides for the return of documents to the party who produced them, it does not preclude the right of the true owner of the document, particularly when the document has served its purpose and the suit has concluded.
The Court held that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application without considering that the petitioner was the rightful owner of the documents in question. It further observed that the claim of Respondent 1 had already been settled and he had no further entitlement to the documents.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was allowed. The trial Court was directed to return the original mortgage deed and sale deed to the petitioner, upon substitution with certified copies.
[G. Madhusudan Rao v. Ammireddy Srinivas Reddy, 2025 SCC OnLine TS 684, decided on 10-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Sankalp Pissay. Advocate
For the Respondent: K Jagadishwar Reddy, Advocate
