LAWS(SIK)-2021-9-17

UMESH PRASAD SHARMA Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

Decided On September 30, 2021
Umesh Prasad Sharma Appellant
V/S
ALLAHABAD BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were not parties before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (the Tribunal). They are adult sons of the respondent no.4 who was proceeded against before the Tribunal having stood as guarantor for the loan taken by the respondent no.2 from the respondent no.1 in Case No.TRC /127/2018 in re: Allahabad Bank vs. M/s Majestic Printers and Publishers and Ors. The respondent no.4 had for that purpose mortgaged the landed property in dispute (the property) to the respondent no.1 as a guarantor. The respondent no.3 wife of respondent no.2 was also a guarantor. The respondent no.2 was the Certificate Debtor no.2 and the respondent no.4 was Certificate Debtor no.3.

(2.) They have approached this court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for quashing of the order dtd. 13/11/2019 (impugned order) purportedly passed by the Tribunal. They seek a declaration that the property involved in the auction sale shall not be sold in auction to realize the dues of the respondent no.1; a declaration that the other landed properties of respondent no.2 first be proceeded against to realize the dues of respondent no.1; and a direction that the loan shall be realized from the respondent no.3 from her employer duly adjusting the considerable amount towards recovery of loan.

(3.) The petitioners state that the property was originally acquired by the father of respondent no.4, late Hari Prasad Sharma and the respondent no.4 got this property as his share from his father on partition and as such it is an ancestral property of the petitioners. It is the petitioner's case that there is an old "ekra" house in the property where the petitioners along with their father-the respondent no.4 and other family members used to reside. It is stated that the petitioners and the respondent no.4 jointly cultivate the land appurtenant to the old "ekra" house. It is the petitioners" case that if they are removed from the "ekra" house and the land appurtenant thereto they would be rendered homeless.