NIVEDITA Vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution oi India. An application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, by South India Bank Ltd. against five respondents. The 1st respondent is a private limited company. Respondents 3 and 5 are man and wife and respondents 2 and 4 are their sons. For the purpose of giving financial assistance to the company, the 3rd respondent in the O.A., along with respondent 2, 4 and 5 executed mortgages for securing the loan. When default was committed, the application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, for recovery of an amount of nearly Rs. 66 lakhs, with future interest and costs. The said original application is pending consideration before the said Tribunal. While so, an application was also filed by the revision petitioners herein who are the younger children of respondents 4 and 6 herein that the mortgage executed by their father is not for necessity or consideration and the same is without taking into consideration the benefit of the family. According to them, the property offered as security is a joint family property and the mortgage is not binding on them, and their shares are not liable to be proceeded with. They wanted to get themselves impleaded in the original application and to have their rights adjudicated in the case. By the impunged order, the Tribunal rejected it, which is challenged in this revision under Article 27 of the Constitution.

(2.) The Tribunal held that the petitioners are not necessary parties, and their father was competent to mortgage the property. It also found that all the adult members of the family jointly executed the document in favour of the Bank, and therefore, even without them the original application could be proceeded with.

(3.) When the matter came up for admission, I ordered notice of motion and granted an order of interim stay. After the counsel for the Bank entered appearance, the matter was heard. In the various grounds in the revision it is contended that even to contend that the loan is not for the benefit of the family or that is for illegal purposes, the minors are necessary partier The father has acted against the interest of the minors, and there is no necessity for forrowing the huge sum for the purpose of business, which is not a family business, and the father has neglected to safeguard their interest. The question whether the loan was contracted for necessity or not would arise during the trial of the original application and without impleading them the finding that the father who is the kartha is competent to execute the documents is wrong.