T SANTHI Vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three appeals arise out of the common order dated 25.02.2011 made in I.A. Nos. 78, 44 and 43 of 2010 in O.S. No. 9746 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, No.1, Chennai. Therefore, all these three appeals are taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant has filed the suit in O.S. No. 9746 of 2010 (C.S. No. 163 of 2005) praying for a declaration to declare that she is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property from the third defendant in respect of shop premises bearing No.7 in the complex known as Alsa Regency, morefully described in the schedule of the plaint; for a declaration to declare that the proceedings initiated by the first defendant in O.A. No. 668 of 2001 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai as against the second and third defendants in relation to the plaint mentioned property is illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and to declare the same as illegal and consequently not binding on the plaintiff; for a consequential injunction restraining the first defendant or his men from bringing the suit property for sale on 24.02.2005 at 2.30 pm or on the subsequent dates for the alleged liabilities of the second and third defendants, except in accordance with law; for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4, their men, servants or agents from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for costs.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the first respondent/bank would vehemently contend that the third respondent has effected an equitable mortgage in respect of the suit property in favour of the first respondent bank as security for the advances availed by the second respondent as early as in the year 1996 and committed default in payment of the mortgage amount. THErefore, the bank has already filed O.A. No. 668 of 2001 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs.54,14,365/- and the Original Application was allowed on 14.08.2003. Subsequent to the decree passed by the Tribunal, the first respondent also obtained Debt Recovery Certificate No. 52 of 2004 and thereafter, the first respondent sought to bring the property for auction sale by executing the decree. At that time, the appellant raised her objection before the Tribunal by producing the copies of the alleged original documents of title before the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai. THE first respondent also produced the documents to substantiate their claim. Both the documents were examined by the Recovery Officer and it was found that the endorsement regarding the stamp, value and stamp paper numbers and dates in the documents furnished by the appellant did not match the relevant register maintained by the Sub-registrar Officer concerned and the endorsement in respect thereof in the certified copies of the sale deeds dated 20.05.1994. THE Recovery Officer also noted several other errors in the documents submitted by the appellant and found that the power agent of the appellant, who executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant, was none other than the husband of the appellant and therefore, the Recovery Officer negatived the claim made by the appellant by an order dated 16.02.2005. As against the same, the appellant has not preferred any appeal but filed the present suit and obtained interim injunction on 23.02.2005 within one week without disclosing the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the order of rejection passed by the Recovery Officer. In fact, the Recovery Officer has categorically given a finding that the documents, which were produced by the appellant through the Indian Bank, which were mortgaged by her, are forged documents and they are not genuine documents and therefore, the purchase of the suit property by the appellant from the respondents 2 and 3 is a sham and nominal purchase especially when the suit property was purchased by the appellant through the power of attorney of the respondents 2 and 3 who is none other than her husband. THE present suit has been filed by the appellant only to stall the proceedings initiated by the first respondent/bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Considering all these aspects, the court below rightly rejected the applications filed by the appellant seeking interim injunction and allowed the vacate stay application filed by the first respondent herein by assigning valid reasons. THErefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeals.