Kuldeep & Ors. vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.

Sh. Sudhir Makkar, Ld. Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants stated that the appellants are neither the borrower nor the guarantor nor the mortgagor in respect of the loan which is subject matter in the appeal and, therefore, they are not liable to make any pre-deposit. It is appearing that the appellants are neither the borrower, nor the guarantor nor the mortgagor of the subject loan and as such they are not liable to make any pre-deposit. Accordingly, I.A. No.666/2026 is decided.

Appellants filed S.A. bearing no.122/2026 titled as Kuldeep & others V. Punjab and Sind Bank & another which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. It was stated in the S.A. that S.V. Malik who was lawful and recorded owner of 1000 sq.yds. land comprising Khasra 47/19 situated in Village Baprola sold the same to Pawan Kakrai by virtue of registered sale deed dated 21.05.1999. Thereafter, Pawan Kakrai sold 600 sq.yds land out of 1000 sq.yds. to Ramesh Chander Sharma for a sale consideration of Rs.72,000/- by executing transfer documents. Pawan Kakrai is stated to be the borrower of the loan, the subject matter of the present S.A. Thereafter, Ramesh Chander Sharma sold the land measuring 600 sq.yds to various persons, including the appellants, in the shape of small plots. Respondents initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act upon the subject loan becoming Non Performing Asset. The appellants being aggrieved, filed the present S,A

The appellants during the pendency of S.A. no.122/2026 made a prayer for restraining the respondent no.1/Receiver from taking physical possession of the properties under their occupation and possession. The appellants also claimed that their respective portions of the property were purchased through GPA and from the date of possession they are in physical possession of the respective portions of the property.

DRT-II, Delhi vide order dated 07.04.2026 rejected their prayer for interim protection by observing that the 10 appellants cannot file a single Securitization Application and they were required to file separate Securitization Applications as per Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. It was also observed that the alleged documents of ownership as produced by the appellants were unregistered documents and ownership of the property cannot be acquired on the basis of those documents as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Sh. Sudhir Makkar, Ld. Senior Advocate for the appellant stated that the appellants who are poor persons are bona fide purchasers of their respective portions of the property out of 600 sq.yds and are in possession since long. It is further argued that the appellants may be given one opportunity to prove their title in respect of their respective portions of the property out of 600 sq.yds and till then their possession be protected.

Ms. Seema Gupta appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 stated that respondent no.2 has also filed a separate Securitization Application and also defended the impugned order dated 07.04.2026.

The appellants appear to be poor bona fide purchasers. The appellants are in possession of small portions of the property out of 600 sq.yds. which was stated to be owned by Ramesh Chander Sharma. The present appeal is disposed of with the direction to the DRT-II, Delhi to decide S.A. bearing no.122/2026 as early as possible, preferably on or before 31.12.2026 and until then, status quo regarding respective possession of the appellant in the property be maintained by the respondent no.1. However, it is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect the final adjudication of the S.A. bearing no.122/2026 by DRT and the appellants are to satisfy the DRT regarding their title and ownership of the respective portions of the property. DRT-II, Delhi shall take independent decision after adjudication in accordance with law on the merit of the case.