SADANAND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present order will dispose of three applications two filed by the plaintiffs, I.A. No. 2470/2009 (seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2) and I.A. No. 11740/2009 (under Section 151 CPC, for urgent orders), and the defendants application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (I.A. No. 3827/2009), which was also heard and is being dealt with by this common order.

(2.) THE plaintiffs seek a declaration that the mortgage of the suit property, i.e. 87-A, Naraina, measuring 309.9 square yards claimed by Defendant No.1 (hereafter referred to as the the PNB) is null and void and unenforceable. Consequent permanent injunction is also sought.

(3.) THE plaintiffs, in support of the case for ad interim injunction rely upon the flow of title through an original Perpetual Lease Deed dated 23.01.1971, issued in favor of vendee purchaser (Defendant Nos. 2 and 3) purchaser. Reliance is also placed upon the registered Conveyance Deed dated 22.12.2006 executed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (which had permitted conversion of the leasehold rights of the suit property, into freehold). The plaintiffs emphasize that the Perpetual Lease Deed (dated 23.01.1971) was cancelled pursuant to cancellation of the Conveyance Deed. Learned senior counsel also took pains to submit that this is apparent from a look at the Perpetual Lease Deed, which clearly shows cancellation of the documents. The plaintiffs contend that even though the transaction with the second and third defendants was that actual title to the property was in respect of the first two floors and terrace rights, the third defendant retained ownership rights in respect of the ground floor. The plaintiffs further state that in accordance with an understanding to reconstruct the property, (which included the ground floor), a fresh sanction for the structure proposed to be built was applied for with the local authority, i.e. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and that the same was granted on 29.07.2008. It is submitted that when matters stood thus, the plaintiff learned in January 2009 about a notice issued inter alia to the third party borrower and to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by the Punjab National Bank (PNB), demanding that certain dues were payable on account of a loan transaction stating that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were mortgagers of the suit property. The plaintiffs also refer to a claim made on 27.01.2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by the PNB, impleading Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and the principal borrower; the relief claimed was for a decree of Rs.1,50,68,000.00 odd on the basis of the alleged mortgage security claimed by the PNB.