Mortgage Debtor’s Successors Cannot Get Title Deeds Back Under CPC Rule 9 When Bank Marked Them, Madras HC Says

Indian Bank obtained a preliminary decree in a mortgage-recovery suit against the petitioners’ predecessor in interest.

The Bank later sought a final decree but did not press that application, stating that the loan account had been transferred to Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited.

The petitioners applied under Order XIII Rule 9 CPC for return of title documents that they had deposited with the Bank and that the Bank had marked in evidence.

The Sub Court, Coonoor, dismissed the application, and the petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order XIII Rule 9 CPC permits a person—whether or not a party to the suit—to seek return of a document produced by that person in the suit and placed on the record, subject to the rule’s conditions and exceptions.

It does not permit a person to use that provision to obtain a document produced and marked by an opposing party or another person.

The Court also considered G. Madhusudan Rao v. Ammireddy Srinivas Reddy, 2025 SCC OnLine TS 684, which it distinguished on its facts: the parties in that case had settled the dispute and the defendant had paid the entire amount, unlike here, where the mortgage debt remained undischarged and had been transferred to another company.

The documents sought were title documents deposited by the petitioners with the Bank, but they had been marked in evidence by the Bank to establish the mortgage debt.

Because the petitioners had not produced those documents in the suit, the Court held that they could not obtain their return through an application under Order XIII Rule 9 CPC.

The transfer of the loan account did not alter that conclusion, as the mortgage debt had not been discharged.

The precedent relied on by the petitioners was therefore distinguishable.

It dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, granted the petitioners liberty to pursue other remedies available in law, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.