AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
The petitioner would assail the proclamation for auction of his immovable property by the Sales Officer, District Cooperative and Rural
Development Bank (now merged in the District Cooperative Krishi Evam Gramin Vikas Bank, Ambikapur).
The documents available on record would indicate that the petitioner's father Mohna Ram and one Shaniram jointly obtained finance to purchase
tractor- trolley in the year 2004. Upon their failure to repay the loan amount, proceeding for recovery by auctioning tractor-trolley was initiated
whereupon the petitioner raised an objection before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ambikapur, who examined the matter and found that
there is some doubt over the loan transaction, therefore, the matter needs to be investigated. The Deputy Registrar also cancelled the auction and
directed initiation of departmental enquiry against the Branch Manager who disbursed the loan. In an enquiry conducted thereafter, statements of
witnesses were recorded and eventually it was found vide Annexure-R/1-2-6 that the then Branch Manager has not committed any irregularity or
illegality while granting loan, as the papers were signed by the petitioner's father Mohna Ram. The papers concerning loan advanced to Shaniram and
Mohna Ram have also been filed along with return filed by the Cooperative Bank.
The documents Annexure-R/1-2 to Annexure-R/1-2-5 are the loan papers duly signed or thumb impressed by the petitioner's father Mohna Ram.
Annexure-R/1-2-2 is an agreement over which the petitioner's father Mohna Ram has signed. In the first document, the petitioner's father has created
mortgage of the property mentioned in the sale proclamation (Annexure- P/1).
In the above view of the matter, this Court cannot go behind the papers available proving the loan transaction between Shaniram and Mohna
Ram on the one side and the Cooperative Bank on the other side. If the petitioner's father has failed to repay the loan and the petitioner is in
possession of the mortgaged property, he is bound by the mortgage created by his father and cannot take exception to the recovery proceeding drawn
by the Bank. Insofar as, the order (Annexure-P/2) is concerned, the Deputy Registrar has nowhere held that the loan transaction was illegal or was
outcome of fraud. He only raised some doubt over transaction, which was cleared after due enquiry, as also in the departmental enquiry proceeding
drawn against the Branch Manager of the Bank.
The Writ Petition has no substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.