STATE BANK OF MYSORE Vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a financial institution and a secured creditor, within the meaning attached to it under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest ct, 2002, having advanced cash credit loan facility with limit of Rs. 5 lakhs on 04.03.2008 to the second respondent and having obtained title deeds of a certain property by way of deposit of title deeds, after issue of a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 29.04.2011 and having allegedly taken possession on 04.08.2011, published an auction sale notice on 09.03.2012. However, having received a communication dated 21.08.2012, as at Annexure-A, from the first respondent, filed this writ petition to quash the said communication and enable it to sell the property offered as security by the first respondent while availing the said loan facility. First respondent has filed statement of objections and has stated that the subject property belongs to Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Maralubagilu, Devanahalli Taluk and that the katha of the property which had been illegally obtained by one Rajanna was cancelled on 16.08.2002 and that the Deputy Commissioner has ordered that 5.25 acres of land in Sy. No. 306 as belonging to Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple situated at Maralubagilu, Devanahalli Taluk and that the unauthorized occupants residing therein be evacuated by having recourse to the provisions under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974.

(2.) Heard learned Advocates on both sides and perused the writ record.

(3.) From the pleadings and contentions it becomes clear that the matter involves disputed questions of fact. Whether the subject property belongs to the first respondent or not is a matter which is required to be proved by the petitioner, in the Civil Court. Merely because the petitioner obtained a registered mortgage deed from the second respondent, it cannot contend that the property belonged to the second respondent only and not to the first respondent. The source of title of the second respondent is required to be established. Unless it is proved that the second respondent is the absolute owner and rightfully mortgaged property, the petitioner cannot have recourse to the provisions of the act and proceed against the subject property.