RAMAN CHOPRA Vs. INDIAN BANK AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 27th June, 2014. The facts of the case are glaring. The respondent bank had filed recovery proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 in the year 2000. They had prayed for a decree of Rs.39,16,466.90 with pendante lite and future interest. Before the tribunal the respondent bank had placed on record copy of the guarantee deed executed by Arvind Chopra and Susheela Chopra, brother and mother of the present petitioner. The loan was granted to Suman Chopra wife of Arvind Chopra, i.e., the sister-in-law of the present petitioner. The aforesaid original proceedings were decreed on 16th June, 2003. The judgment records that the respondent bank had placed and proved on record joint and several confirmations of deposit of titled deeds, which may be proved as Exhibit PW-1/10. Exhibit PW-1/10 has not been filed along with the writ petition, but from the papers placed on record, it is apparent that original title papers of property No. 339, Hakikat Nagar, Delhi-9 were furnished to the bank, mortgaging the said property. The respondent had produced one J.P. Solanki,AW-1, who was the Chief Manager and had proved confirmation of equitable mortgage by Susheela Chopra, which was marked, as noticed above, as AW-1/10. Susheela Chopra at that time had also produced and furnished a registered Will of her father Sampuran Singh, dated 2nd April, 1983. As per the said Will, the property stood bequeathed to Susheela Chopra, widow of late Amrit Lal Chopra. The petitioner, it is again noticed is the son of Susheela Chopra and late Amrit Lal Chopra.

(2.) It is obvious to us that the original Will was furnished and given to the bank at the time of creating equitable mortgage for a specific reason; to show that Susheela Chopra was the owner of the property. This is the inference, which can be drawn. There was no other reason and ground for furnishing the original title deeds and the registered Will.

(3.) After the original proceedings were decreed on 16th June, 2003, Sampuran Singh, father of Susheela Chopra on 6th January, 2005 filed objections before the recovery officer stating that he was alive and, therefore, the Will dated 2nd April, 1983 was inconsequential as the bequest would operate only upon his death. It is noticeable and apparent that during the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal from 2000 till 6 th January, 2005, Susheela Chopra, Arvind Chopra and Suman Chopra had not taken the said plea or stated that Sampuran Singh was alive. It is also noticeable and accepted that the original documents of the property were furnished to the bank and filed with them along with execution of confirmation documents relating to equitable mortgage. The title documents, it is reasonable to infer, were made available by Sampuran Singh. Further, Sampuran Singh would have known that the original title deeds were not with him. It is not pleaded or stated that the title deeds were stolen or implaced.