STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Vs. SIDDAMSETTY RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 3rd defendant in the OA is the subsequent purchaser of the property after the mortgage was created to the Bank. The PO, DRT, Hyderabad has passed order holding that the defendants 1 and 2 alone are liable for the suit claim. It has been observed by the PO that "the 3rd defendant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor for the liability of the 1st defendant and in the absence of any documents to establish the creditor-borrower relationship between the 3rd defendant and the applicant Bank, it has to be said that 3rd defendant has no 'debt' as defined under the RDB Act which he is liable to pay to the applicant" and accordingly dismissed the O.A. as against the 3rd defendant. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant Bank has come forward with this appeal.

(2.) THE Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that the 3rd defendant is the subsequent purchaser of the mortgaged property and the 3rd defendant is also liable for the suit claim to the extent of the mortgaged property in his hands. The Counsel for the respondents submits that the mortgage was created subsequent to the purchase by the 3rd defendant and so the 3rd defendant is not liable. The Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that the mortgage was much earlier to the purchase by 3rd defendant and the 3rd defendant has purchased the property subject to the mortgage created in favour of the Bank and the 3rd defendant is liable to the extent of the property in his hands.

(3.) HENCE , I find that the order passed by the PO, DRT, Hyderabad holding D3 not liable for the suit claim is liable to be set aside and it is set aside to that extent so far as D3 is concerned and the order of PO is modified and it is declared that D3 is also liable for the suit claim to the extent of the mortgaged property in his hands, which was purchase by him from D 1 and D2.