SADHNA DEVI Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 07.05.2014 in Appeal No. 448/2012. The petitioner's appeal under Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act") was dismissed by the impugned order. The brief facts are that the petitioner claims to have purchased property bearing No. 3/157, measuring 105 sq.yds out of khasra No. 642 of Village Chandrawali, Shahdara, abadi of Lal Dora, situated at Gali Ganga Ram, Teliwara, Shahdara (hereinafter called "the suit property") from her husband Shri Anil Kumar on 14.03.2005. The said Anil Kumar has been impleaded as the fifth respondent. In these proceedings the petitioner claims that the appeal was the result of the settlement arrived at through intervention of the relatives and family members, by which inter se dispute of the petitioner and the fifth respondent was resolved. The controversy in this case turns around the order made by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) on 31.08.2009 under Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act on the application of the first respondent (hereinafter called "the bank"). The bank had prior to that order issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, claiming, inter alia, that the suit property had been mortgaged with it to secure a loan obtained by the second respondent in these proceedings i.e. Smt. Anila Sharma. The notice issued by the ACMM was challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "DRT") under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The DRT vide its order dated 6.11.2012 rejected the appeal. Consequently, the petitioner approached the DRT but unsuccessfully since the impugned order rejected her pleas.

(2.) DURING the pendency of these proceedings, this court had noticed that the document relied upon by the petitioner i.e. the copy of the sale deed dated 14.03.2005, by which the fifth respondent conveyed title to the petitioner, was not an authorized one. It accordingly had directed the de -sealing of the premises, which were lying locked pursuant to the order of ACMM. After the de -sealing was done, the petitioner inspected the premises. She alleged that the original registered sale deed dated 14.03.2005 was missing from the premises. Consequently, she apparently applied for the certified copy and obtained on 12.12.2004. The same has been produced. The photocopy thereof has been directed to be kept on record.

(3.) THIS court has considered the submissions. The transaction through which the fifth respondent i.e. the petitioner's husband apparently mortgaged the suit property was pursuant to another sale deed of 28.08.2006. The transaction through which second respondent became the purchaser of the property is a registered sale deed dated 28.08.2006. The bank in this case lent money, subsequently based upon the deposit of that title deed and the entire chain. Obviously, the title deeds pertaining to petitioner were not available to it. That the petitioner came forward with the document registered sale deed dated 14.03.2005 ipso facto. Whilst the Tribunal's finding might be justified if it were based upon evidence or materials placed on record or otherwise gathering of the correct valuation of the property, the discussion of the DRT does not disclose the basis for holding that the sale deed of 14.03.2005 was a sham document. In these circumstances, the matter is remitted for re -consideration by the DRT, which shall take into account the certified true copy of the registered sale deed, produced by the petitioner in these proceedings as well as take into account all other relevant factors in deciding whether or not the transaction was shrouded in suspicion as it has been held in this case.