RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL Vs. N SATHISH KUMAR; S DINESH; S UMESH; L NAGARAJ; DEENADAYALAN; BANK OF INDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter stands listed today after notice of motion ordered by this Court has been served on the respondents. Respondents 2 to 4 have not chosen to enter appearance, even though they received notice. First respondent is represented by Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate. Fifth respondent has entered appearance through Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, Advocate. Sixth respondent is represented by Mr.S.Sathyanaraynan, Advocate. Though they have chosen to enter appearance through Counsel, today there is no representation for R5 and R6. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of Mr.Rabu Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The arguments advanced by Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel and by Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the first respondent are heard.

(2.) Before dealing with the issue that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision petition, it shall be useful to briefly narrate the background in which the Civil Revision Petition came to be filed. The suit property was originally owned by one Srikantiah. He is said to have created an equitable mortgage in respect of the suit property for the loan advanced to one Mahadevan as he stood as a guarantor of the said Mahadevan. Since the principal borrower did not repay the amount to the Bank of India / the fifth defendant, proceedings were initiated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the outstanding amount from the guarantor, namely Srikantiah and after obtaining a recovery order, the property was brought for sale by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cauvery Complex, Trichy Road, Coimbatore, who is the petitioner in the Revision Petition / 6th defendant in the original suit concerned in this revision. In the auction conducted, the fifth respondent Deenadayalan emerged as the successful bidder and he got a sale deed executed by the Recovery Officer on behalf of the guarantor.

(3.) Even before the sale of the property by the Recovery Officer based on the recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the first respondent in the Civil Revision Petition purchased the property under a sale deed dated 17.02.2003 from the above said Sri Kandiah and his sons, who are arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit /respondents 2 and 3 in the Civil Revision Petition. When the auction purchaser made an attempt to take physical possession, the first respondent / plaintiff came to know that such an auction sale had taken place, pursuant to which, he collected materials and filed the above said suit for a declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the 5th respondent / Deenadayalan, pursuant to the alleged action sale conducted by the revision petitioner / 6th defendant is fraudulent and hence, null and void.