ASHOK KUMAR RAIZADA Vs. BANK OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 8.5.2012, this Court had framed a preliminary issue which reads as under:-

(2.) The present Suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration holding that the Sale Deeds dated 15.4.2005 and 29.6.2005 in favour of Late Chander Prakash Aggarwal deposited with defendant No.1/ICICI Bank Limited (previously The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd) and Punjab National Bank/defendant No.2 respectively and other related documents relating to property No.A-59, Shankar Garden, New Delhi are forged and fabricated and do not pertain to the said property and that the sale deed dated 11.2.1986 of the plaintiff related to the said property are genuine and to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the said property and has nothing to do with the loan granted by defendants No.1 and 2 to late Shri Chander Prakash Aggarwal.

(3.) As per the plaint it is averred that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the said property/land No.A-59, Shankar Garden, New Delhi measuring 216-2/3 sq.yds which the plaintiff is stated to have purchased vide Registered Sale Deed dated 11.2.1986 from Shri Sarjivan Kumar Sood, Shri Puran Chand Sood, Shri Ashok Kumar Sood and Shri Pradeep Kumar Sood all sons of late Shri Chaman Lal Sood. It is stated that on 18.12.2008 plaintiff received information from the neighbours that a notice has been pasted on its boundary wall whereby a Receiver has been appointed. It revealed that one Shri Alok Gupta had preferred an Appeal and certain orders had been passed in favour of Shri Alok Gupta. The plaintiff claims that on enquiry it was revealed that the said Shri Alok Gupta had produced Sale Deed dated 26.10.1971. The plaintiff claims that on verification from the records of the Sub Registrar Office, no Sale Deed was found to be registered. The plaintiff hence filed FIR No.88/2009 with the relevant Police Station. It is averred that a challan has been filed by the police. The plaintiff filed an appeal being S.A. No.474/2008 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III and on 23.12.2008 the DRT-III was pleased to quash the order of attachment by the Authorized Officer declaring that the property of the plaintiff cannot be taken as a secured asset of the bank.