AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Appeal is filed against the order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Karnataka at Bangalore in TSA No. 38/2017 on 05.06.2017.
Respondents in this Appeal filed TSA No. 38/2017 seeking to set aside the Sale Notice dated 03.12.2013 and to quash the Sale Certificate dated 04.04.2014. The case of the Respondents was that they are third parties to the SARFAESI proceedings. The Respondents purchased the Schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.22.80 Lakhs from Mr. Venkatesh Prasad on 13.10.2006. The Respondents availed a housing loan of Rs.20 Lakhs from Syndicate Bank, Banashankari main Branch, Bangalore on 14.10.2006. The Respondents were regularly paying the amounts due to the Syndicate Bank. The Respondents are enjoying the schedule property by virtue of right, title, interest and possession. Prior to their purchase, their predecessor in interest had been enjoying the property. When that be the case, the Schedule property was sold in the SARFAESI proceedings without the knowledge of the Respondents. Therefore, the SA has been filed for setting aside the Sale Notice dated 03.12.2013 and to quash the Sale Certificate dated 04.04.2014.
The Learned Presiding Officer, on going through the records and the submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the parties, found that there was a serious issue of title involved in this case and only a competent Civil Court could adjudicate the issue of title involved in this case. There were also criminal cases pending, and the outcome of the said criminal cases is necessary for taking a decision in respect of the title dispute. In this view of the matter, the SA was allowed and the Sale Notice dated 03.12.2013 and the Sale Certificate dated 04.04.2014 were set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, this Appeal is filed.
No representation for the Respondents 1 and 2.
When the matter was heard on 25.08.2026, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Bank submitted that the Respondents 1 and 2 had filed a Civil Suit in OS No.7778/2018 on the file of XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, and obtained a judgement in their favour. In view of the said judgement, nothing survives in this Appeal. The Bank intends to file an Appeal against the said judgement. If the Bank succeeds in the Appeal, the Appellant Bank may be given liberty to reopen this Appeal. A copy of the judgement in OS No.7778/2018 is also produced.
The perusal of the judgement in OS No. 7778/2018 shows that Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit against Sri. T.V. Anand and four others, including the Appellant Bank, for declaration of title and consequential reliefs in respect of the property purchased by the Respondents 1 and 2 from Venkatesh Prasad. After contest, the suit was decreed in their favour, declaring that the Respondents 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Therefore, as rightly held by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Bangalore that in a serious title dispute case, the Tribunal cannot take a decision on the title. Admittedly, in this case, the trial court has upheld the title in favour of the Respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the Schedule property sold under SARFAESI proceedings.
It is not known as to whether any Appeal is filed by the Appellant or any of the other Defendants in the suit. As things stand now, the title in respect of the Schedule property was declared in favour of Respondents 1 and 2, and therefore, the SARFAESI measures initiated by the Appellant Bank in respect of the Schedule property against the supposed owners are not legally correct.
In this view of the matter, the Appeal in RA (SA) 129/2019 is disposed of, as nothing survives for adjudication in view of the judgement and decree passed in OS No. 7778/2018 in favour of Respondents 1 and 2. In case, the Bank files an Appeal and the judgement of trial court is reversed and the title is confirmed in favour of the mortgagors of the Appellant Bank, then, the Bank is given liberty to re-open this Appeal. No costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.