SARASWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff wherein his suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed by the Courts below and the Lower Appellate Court has in appeal directed that the appellant would be liable to be paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by the Haryana Financial Corporation and she is not entitled to relief of injunction.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit alleging that land measuring 100 kanals 6 marlas situated in village Shahpur, Tehsil and District Hisar was mortgaged with possession by Mangat Ram with the plaintiff as per registered mortgage deed No.5153 dated 17.1.1995 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. It was pleaded that the mutation No.1937 was also entered and sanctioned in this regard on 4.11.1996 and the plaintiff was cultivating the suit land with the help of family members. On 24.11.2006 the plaintiff came to know that Managing Director defendant No.3 had issued a recovery certificate and ordered to auction/sell a part of the suit property to recover the loan amount alleged to have been taken by Mangat Ram and accordingly, the recovery certificate and the sale order passed by the Collector were challenged being null and void as the plaintiff was in continuous possession of the suit property as mortgagee and the suit property could not be sold with her consent by another department. It was contended that the Corporation was free to recover the amount from the other property of Mangat Ram and the recovery certificate was not issued by the competent authority and the suit property was never mortgaged to the Haryana Financial Corporation.

(3.) The suit was contested by the State-defendants No.1 and 2 by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of material facts and collusion and contended that mortgage deed was only for a period of ten years and that Mangat Ram owner of the suit property had obtained loan of Rs.10,34,700/- during the period from 1988 to 1992 from the defendants-Corporation, but had failed to repay the same. It was, accordingly, contended that now a sum of Rs.44,23,991/- was due and payable and the borrower was owner of the suit property and the land had been attached and fixed for auction and was sought to be defeated by the plaintiff and the aforesaid borrower.