JIGNA MANOJBHAI TANTI Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a daughter of karta of Hindu undivided family, is aggrieved by orders passed by lower courts declining the injunction against the proceedings taken by first respondent bank for realisation of its dues by selling of what the petitioner calls coparcenery Hindu properties. Both the courts below saw Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( for short "the Securitisation Act" ) as a bar in entertaining the suit and thus declined the injunction.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it transpires that the petitioner pleaded in the plaint her right under Hindu Law as a coparcener as also the right of residence. The petitioner also pleaded that the action of the respondent in declaring the Assets of petitioner's father as Nonperforming Asset ( for short "NPA" ) is illegal and all further action taken subsequent thereto are also illegal. In the plaint, the prayer seeking to set aside all such proceedings has been made. No prayer for partition or the rights under the Hindu Law was made in the plaint.

(3.) IT appears that as per the case of petitioner, coparcenery property was mortgaged by her father who admittedly is karta of HUF.