LEELA BAI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are being dealt together since they arise out of common judgment impugned and passed by the DRAT, Allahabad and whereas Writ Petition No.10576/2012 has been filed by the objectors/petitioners against the respondent/Bank Writ Petition No.2636/2013 has been filed by the State Bank of India, Ratlam against the respondent Omkar Singh and others.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that the petitioners did not have any contractual relationship with the respondent/Bank and they had no knowledge about the execution of power of attorney or creation of an equitable mortgaged by Smt. Bagheli Bai and they being bona fide purchasers for consideration, the Bank had failed to verify that immovable mortgaged properties belonging to Smt. Bagheli Bai were not free from encumbrances and had accepted the mortgage when there was absolutely no sale-able interest in the immovable property.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that since the petitioners were not aware of the mortgage between Certificate Holder Bank and Smt. Bagheli Bai and since the loan was also not availed by Smt. Bagheli Bai, she was merely the guarantor in the loan transaction. Moreover the land was not demarcated and hence the auction sale was vitiated. Thus objections of the petitioners had not been considered by any of the Courts below in accordance with provisions of law. However, in the alternative claiming equitable relief, Counsel also submitted the fact that petitioners have been in possession of disputed land through out for more than last 35 years now; therefore, Counsel for the petitioners stated at the bar that since Certificate Holder Bank had already obtained valuation in respect on entire properties of Smt. Bagheli Bai at the time when it was put to auction and the money has already been deposited by the respondent No.3/ Mubark Khan auction purchaser to the tune of Rs.15,80,000/-, in a Nationalized Bank, there was no loss incurred and the objectors were willing to pay the market value of the property to the bank towards realization of the loan even today.