Admission of possession of title deeds warranted a mandatory injunction directing their return.

The plaintiff sued to recover money allegedly lent to the defendants and stated that it held nine original title deeds relating to property at 2, Gagan Sarkar Road, Kolkata, as security.

Defendant No. 1 disputed the alleged loan liability and counterclaimed for return of the deeds, asserting that the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the property and paid only part of the agreed consideration.

The suit was initially decreed, but Defendant No. 1 later obtained leave to defend and filed its counterclaim.

After the plaintiff failed to appear and file an additional written statement, the plaint was dismissed for default and the counterclaim was ordered to proceed ex parte.

The court noted that the plaintiff’s claims had not been pursued and that the original deeds remained with it.

1. Whether Defendant No. 1 was entitled to an order directing the plaintiff to return the nine original title deeds, in light of the admitted fact that the deeds were held by the plaintiff.

2. Whether the plaintiff’s unpursued monetary claims required further consideration in determining the counterclaim.

The judgment identifies no statute, procedural provision, or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It proceeds on the stated principle that an admitted fact—in this case, the plaintiff’s possession of the original title deeds—could support a decree on that basis.

The court also treated the plaintiff’s failure to pursue its claims, following dismissal of the plaint for default and the expiry of the statutory period referred to in the judgment, as leaving those claims for no further consideration.

The court relied on the plaintiff’s pleaded admission that the nine original title deeds had been handed over to it and remained in its possession.

Since the plaintiff did not pursue its claims and the counterclaim proceeded ex parte, the court considered the deeds’ continued retention sufficient to order their return; it did not undertake a further determination of the parties’ competing accounts of the underlying transactions.

In default, Defendant No. 1 could commence execution proceedings.

The suit and counterclaim were disposed of accordingly, and the decree was directed to be drawn up.