P. SATYANARAYANA Vs. ANJANA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.5 aggrieved by the order dtd. 17/4/2019 passed in I.A.No.990 of 2018 in O.S.No.1703 of 2014 on the file of II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in O.S.No.1703 of 2014.

(2.) The petitioner herein who is defendant No.5 in the suit contested the plaintiff's suit seeking declaration of title, cancellation of a General Power of Attorney (GPA), and sale deeds. The plaintiff claims ownership and possession of the property, purchased from the Housing Society on 25/11/1990. The plaintiff alleges that defendant Nos.1 to 3 manipulated, created and fabricated fake documents. However, defendant No.5 asserts that he acquired the property through a sale conducted by the State Bank of India-defendant No.4 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest act (for short 'SARFAESI Act'). It is contended that as per Sec. 34 of the SARFAESI Act the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction, as the auction became final and the bank issued a sale certificate. Furthermore, Sec. 18 of the SARFAESI Act bars the Courts from trying the matters as specified in Sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The defendant No.5 also claims that the suit is undervalued, as the plaintiff has not valued the property on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed sought to be cancelled. Therefore, requested the Court to reject the plaint.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit, denying the petition allegations. It is contended that the defendant No.5 had already filed a written statement and was now attempting to delay the proceedings by filing this petition. The plaintiff alleged that her properties were sold based on forged documents, and that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had colluded and committed fraud. It is also stated that a criminal complaint was lodged against defendants 1 to 4 and plaintiff also issued a legal notice to the bank on 1/4/2014, requesting them not to finalize the sale. Despite this, the bank executed a sale deed in favor of defendant No.5 on 11/4/2014. It is further stated that the bank officials were complicit in the fraud and sold the property without proper title, and the documents created by the defendants were fraudulent, Sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act is not applicable. Therefore, the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff contended that she valued the suit correctly and sought cancellation of fraudulent documents. Hence, requested the court to dismiss the petition. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition.