PRABHA JAIN Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following order of the Court was delivered by :

(2.) THE plaintiff's case is that the suit land was purchased by her late father-in-law vide sale deed dated 19.6.1967 and after his death on 15.8.2005 the same was inherited in equal shares by her late husband Mahendra Kumar Jain, husband's elder brother Sumer Chand Jain (defendant No.4) and mother-in-law. After the death of Mahendra Kumar, his 1/3rd share was inherited by the plaintiff. But Sumer Chand Jain without any partition amongst the heirs divided the land into several plots and illegally sold them to different persons. One such plot was also sold to Parmeshwar Das Prajapati (defendant no.3) vide registered sale deed dated 3.7.2008 who mortgaged the same with the Central Bank of India (defendant No.1) for obtaining loan. Defendant no.2 is an Authorized Officer of the Central Bank of India. The Authorized Officer in order to enforce the security interest has taken possession of the plot under section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the SARFAESI Act") and thereafter published an advertisement in the newspaper for its auction. In the suit the plaintiff has prayed that the sale deed and mortgage be declared illegal and she be given possession of the suit land after demolishing the construction raised on it. The sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed is Rs.2,23,000.00 and the default amount due to the Central Bank of India is shown to be Rs.7,62,568.00. The plaintiff has paid the Court fee of Rs.1000.00 for the relief of declaration, Rs.100.00 for the relief of possession and Rs.876.00 for damages caused to the suit land i.e. total Rs.1976.00.

(3.) THE trial court after hearing the parties by the impugned order allowed the objections and rejected the plaint on the ground that it is barred under section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The trial court has even held that having regard to the valuation of the suit plaintiff has not paid the proper Court fee. We, therefore, have to examine whether the trial court has committed an illegality in rejecting the plaint.