STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ARCHANA ADIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sri Srinivas Kumar Mawle, the father of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and husband of respondent No.4 obtained loan from the petitioner for higher studies of respondent No.3 in the United States of America. An item of immovable property bearing house No.3 -4 -846/1, Barkatpura, Hyderabad was mortgaged for repayment of the loan. The original loanee Srinivas Kumar Mawle died. The loan became non -performing asset (NPA) on account of failure to pay instalments. Therefore, the petitioner got issued a notice dated 10 -01 -2013 to respondent Nos.1 to 4 for repayment of the loan. Since there was no positive response, O.A No. 303 of 2013 was field before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal) by invoking the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the Act).

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the daughter and the son of late Srinivas Kumar Mawle filed O.S No. 2073 of 2013 in the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, with a prayer that the transaction of mortgage covered by letter dated 27 -12 -2006, followed by the deposit of instrument, be declared as null and void. The petitioner herein was shown as defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.3 and 4, as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit.

(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the I.A through order dated 14 -03 -2014. Hence, the revision. Sri Hari Prasad Podila, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submits that the effort of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is to dispute and deny their obligation under the transaction of mortgage and that the same can be urged by filing a counter claim in the O.A. He made extensive reference to Sections 18 and 19 of the Act.