RAJ PAL SINGH Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed an application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) claiming to be the true owner of suit property i.e. Khasra No. 329 outside the old Lal Dora, village Mukhmil, Delhi. It was alleged by the petitioner/applicant that the respondents, especially the first respondent had falsely claimed said property and described it as Khasra No. 299, measuring 150 sq. yds. in old Lal Dora of the same village. Syndicate Bank which had advanced amounts to the second respondent, had sought to initiate measures to take possession of the said properties equitably mortgaged with it, i.e. the said Khasra No. 299. The dispute raised by the petitioner with respect to the identity and title of the property culminated in findings adverse to him. He appealed to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which by its order dated 27.8.2014 considered the evidence and rejected its contentions. He is, therefore, before this Court. On 2.12.2014, this Court had recorded the following order to work out an arrangement to secure interest of the parties.

(2.) WE have heard Counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that having regard to the factual nature of the dispute, which appears to have been decided by the DRAT with the benefit of documentary evidence and local site inspection, it would be appropriate that the petitioner approaches the Civil Court. We are conscious that adverse findings have been recorded against the petitioner. Nevertheless we notice that he was not a party to the transaction which led to the SARFAESI Act proceedings, but was compelled to approached the DRT under Section 17. In that sense, the question of title too in the circumstances of the case has been gone into by examination of all the relevant records such as title deeds, revenue records, state of possession, especially both possession and identity. Since the outstanding amounts have now been deposited although by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the Bank should be allowed to appropriate the sum and discharge the liabilities, which exist on that count. The petitioner and the first respondent have no objection to this course. The petitioner however submits that all contentions and rights available in law should be permitted to him in the proceedings to be hereafter initiated. He also requests that this Court should make appropriate observations so that the findings of DRAT/DRT do not come in the way of an examination on the merits of the case. In view of the above submissions the following directions are issued: