Mr. P.S. Palani vs Indian Bank & Ors.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied with order passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai, in SA 122/2010 passed on 13.03.2015, the Applicant before the DRT filed this Appeal.

The case of the Appellant before DRT was that Appellant had never stood as a guarantor for the loans availed by M/s. Malaysia Timber Suppliers, and he never deposited his documents of title for creation of Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds. Forging his signature, documents have been created as if he had created Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds. Even today, the Appellant is in possession of the original documents of title deeds. He has not received any notice in respect of SARFAESI proceedings starting from Demand Notice till Sale Notice. He was not aware of the OA 458/2007 filed before DRT-II, Chennai, for recovery of Rs.2,19,00,703/-wherein the Appellant was shown as Defendant No.5. He has not received any notice in the OA and the recovery proceedings. Only when the Recovery Inspector along with the Bank officials inspected the property on 24.08.2005, in the recovery proceedings, he came to know about the sale of the property. One Mr. Khalifullah proprietor of M/s. Malaysia Timber Suppliers, took xerox copies of the title documents with intention to buy the property. That was misused by him fraudulently for creating mortgage. On these grounds, he filed Securitization Application in SA 122/2010 challenging Possession Notice dated 05.02.2009, Sale Notice dated 05.04.2010 issued under SARFAESI Act, 2002. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai, on going through the records and submissions of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, dismissed the SA, necessitating filing of this Appeal.

Learned Counsel for Appellant reiterated the averments made in the Securitisation Application stating that the Appellant had neither stood as guarantor for the loan availed by the borrower nor deposited his original documents of title deeds with intention to create equitable mortgage. No guarantee documents were executed by him. The guarantee documents, Letter of Confirmation and other documents claiming that Appellant had stood as guarantor, deposited the original documents of title deeds and executed mortgage by deposit of title deeds were all created by forging his signatures. When the Appellant is in possession of the original document of title, and when he had not created any mortgage by deposit of title deeds, how can the Bank claim that the security interest is created over his property and proceed under SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is absolutely illegal. He further submitted that there is no evidence produced to show that he produced the original documents of title with the Bank and they were marked as Exhibits in the OA proceedings. The Appellant came to know during recovery proceedings that the sale had to be stalled because of non-availability of the original documents. Thereafter, the Bank initiated the measures under SARFAESI Act, 2002, suppressing the fact that the original documents are not available either with Bank or in DRT and sold the property to the Auction Purchaser.

Learned Presiding Officer has not considered the plea regarding the non-execution of guarantee document and creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Learned Presiding Officer dismissed the Securitisation Application on the basis of Affidavit filed in the Civil Court with regard to deposit of title documents for creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Appellant had moved Civil Court for appropriate amendment in the Affidavit in this regard.

Respondent Bank has not taken any steps against the borrower for recovery of loan amount. If there is dispute with regard to title deeds, mortgage, etc., prior to issuance of Demand Notice, that issue has to be decided only by the competent Civil Court and not by the Tribunal. In this regard, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian in Central Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Smt. Prabha Jain and Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 1876/2016 is relied. The Bank has not established the creation of mortgage; the Recovery Officer found that no original documents are available, and therefore, the alleged execution of mortgage by deposit of title deeds by Appellant, cannot be considered by DRT.

It is further submitted that when the Recovery Officer cancelled the sale on account of non-availability of original documents, the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act, 2002, is totally prohibited under law. It is beyond the powers of Authorised Officer. It amounts to fraud and against the provisions of SARFAESI Act, more so, against the Appellant. No complaint was given by the Bank for missing of documents.

It is further submitted that though Sale Notice referred about larger extent of 50 cents, what was available on the ground was only 47 ¼ cents, but the Sale Notice and Sale Certificate mention the extent of the property sold as 50 cents. Thus, the Sale Notice and Sale Certificate are totally defective. The Auction Purchaser filed WP No.8403/2013 seeking refund of the sale consideration, but now filed a Memo seeking the property. The Auction Purchaser is estopped from doing that. Even in the counter filed, the Auction Purchaser seeks only refund of the advance money. Though the order was reserved on 19.08.2011, it was pronounced only on 13.03.2015. Thus, Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that the order of Learned Presiding Officer is liable to be set aside by allowing this Appeal.

Learned Counsel for Appellant relied on the decision in Anil Roy Vs. State of Bihar in Appeal (Crl.) No.389/1998 of Hon’ble Supreme Court for the proposition that unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgment, unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, is highly unreasonable. It is likely that some points which the litigant considers important may have escaped notice. Importantly the litigants must have complete confidence in the results of the litigation.

He also relied on the decision of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Corporation Bank and Ors., of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2025) ibclaw.in 387 SC, for the proposition that if sale notice is issued without disclosure of the encumbrance, the sale is liable to be set aside.

In reply, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank submitted that in the recovery proceedings, order of attachment was passed by Recovery Officer. By proceedings dated 10.02.2006, the non-availability of the original documents was referred. In the Writ Petition No. 14517/2010 and WP Nos. 19435-19438/2010, the Appellant had not taken the ground that he had not mortgaged the property. The Affidavit filed in OS No. 216/2010, proves without any doubt, the Appellant stood as a guarantor to the loan availed by the borrower and created the mortgage by deposit of original documents of title deeds. The said Suit filed by the Appellant was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Bank has produced all the necessary documents to show the creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. In the OA No.57/1998, though the Appellant engaged Counsel, failed to contest the OA and that was allowed. The Application in IA 676/2005 filed to condone the delay in filing the ex parte order was dismissed for non-prosecution. MA 116/2010 filed to condone the delay in filing the Restoration Application was dismissed for default on 04.11.2010. Respondent Bank produced all the original documents before the DRT in original proceedings, and thus, documents were marked as Exhibits A1 to A30. Therefore, it is contended that the claim of the Appellant that the Appellant was not a guarantor to the loan and had not executed the mortgage by deposit of title deeds are totally incorrect and false submissions. Thus, he prayed for confirming the order passed by Learned Presiding Officer and dismiss this Appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Auction Purchaser submitted that the issue that the Appellant had not created the mortgage was not raised, till the year 2000. The Sale Notice and Sale Certificate were issued for lesser extent. The Respondent Bank proceeded to sell the property when it was not in possession of the original documents of title. Appellant takes the contradictory stand with regard to possession. It is claimed that Appellant seeks restoration of possession on the ground that the possession was illegally taken, but also claims that the Appellant is in possession of the property. Sale has to be cancelled and the sale price of Rs.3,06,25,000/-with interest @ 20.75% has to be paid to the Auction Purchaser, if this Tribunal concludes that the Appellant has not stood as a guarantor and deposited his title documents with intention to create equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Alternatively, if this Tribunal concludes that the Appellant stood as a guarantor and created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds, the Auction Purchaser should be given original documents with possession of the property.

In reply, Learned Counsel for the Bank submitted that there is no specific prayer for refund of sale consideration.

Learned Counsel for Appellant, in reply, submitted that the Appellant had not taken the original documents from the Tribunal, rather he had not deposited the original title documents with the bank. The Auction Purchaser’s prayer is restrictive. Statement made in the parallel proceedings in the Original Suit with regard to deposit of title documents, cannot be used for deciding this Appeal. There is no proof filed to show that the Appellant removed the original documents from the custody of DRT.

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

From the grounds made in the Securitization Application in SA 122/2010, Appellant had primarily challenged the SARFAESI measures on the ground that the Appellant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. He never executed any guarantee letter nor had he deposited the title deeds in respect of his immovable property for creation of mortgage. It is further alleged that the principal borrower in collusion with Respondent Bank’s officials had played fraud on the Appellant. Therefore, the Respondent Bank has no locus standi to initiate measures under SARFAESI Act, 2002. He is in possession of his document of titles and that possession of property as well. Thus, the main ground of attack on the SARFAESI proceedings revolves around the fact that the Appellant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor and he never deposited his documents of title for creation of equitable mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds. He is in possession of title documents and the property.

There is no plea raised with regard to the fact that whether the measures taken under SARFAESI Act, 2002, with issuance of Demand Notice, Possession Notice, Sale Notice were not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules made there under. Therefore, it is required to consider in this Appeal the following points:

Admittedly, during the course of hearing of this Appeal, as directed by this Tribunal, Appellant has produced the following original title documents:-

The Respondent Indian Bank claims that the original documents of title produced by Appellant for creation of equitable mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds had been marked as Exhibits in the Original Application proceedings in OA 57/1998. Original title documents had been marked along with other documents as Exhibits A1 to A30. These documents are mysteriously found missing from the custody of the Tribunal. When the property was sold in the recovery proceedings, original title documents could not be delivered to the Auction Purchaser, despite attempts made to trace documents. On the failure to trace the documents, the sale held during recovery proceedings had to be cancelled. Thereafter, the property was sold under SARFAESI Act, 2002, to the Auction Purchasers/respondents 3 and 4.

In support of this submission, Respondent Bank produced copies of deed of Agreement of Guarantee executed by Appellant on 17.09.1991, Undertaking Letter given by Appellant on 19.09.1991, Acknowledgement for Deposit of Title Deeds dated 19.09.1991, for perusal of this Tribunal. The perusal of these documents, especially, Deed of Agreement of Guarantee dated 17.09.1991, shows that Appellant had agreed to be a guarantor for the loan availed by M/s. Malaysia Timber Suppliers to the tune of Rs.50 Lakhs.

The Undertaking Letter dated 19.09.1991 given by Appellant reads that he offered his property as equitable mortgage/security for the credit facilities sanctioned to M/s. Malaysia Timber Suppliers. He gave a Certificate that,

The Letter of Acknowledgement dated 19.09.1991 for deposit of title deeds shows that the Appellant deposited,

Through sale deed dated 11.06.1981, Appellant purchased this property in question from Ponnammal. These documents clearly establishes the fact that Appellant had stood as guarantor for the loan availed by M/s. Malaysia Timber Suppliers by offering his property as security and by creation of equitable mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds. When the Appellant claims that the principal borrower and Bank officials had played fraud in creation of documents, it is expected that the Appellant should have given a criminal complaint against the principal borrower and the Bank officials. No such complaint has been brought to the notice of this Tribunal. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that Appellant had not stood as guarantor/mortgagor, not deposited the title documents with an intention to create equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds with first Respondent Bank, cannot be accepted.

It is confirmed by an Affidavit filed by Appellant in OS No. 216/2010 filed before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Sriperumbudur, by Maulivakkam Villagers represented by its President i.e., Appellant herein, against Indian Bank seeking injunction restraining the Indian Bank from interfering with enjoyment of suit road for the purpose of ingress and egress of the villagers. In the said suit, Appellant filed an Affidavit. The gist of the affidavit are as follows;

This Affidavit filed by Appellant before Civil Court, is an unassailable admission of the fact that he stood as a guarantor/mortgagor for the loan availed by M/s. Malaysia Timber Suppliers and that he offered his property as mortgage for creation of equitable mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds. Though the Appellant had made some efforts to salvage the damage, this Affidavit cast upon him, by filing amendment Application to amend the Affidavit to state that Appellant never stood as guarantor and not deposited his title deeds for creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds, it is not known what had happened to the Amendment Application. Even if this amendment is entertained, it cannot be given any credence, for the reason that amendment was sought only to get out of the precarious situation in which the Appellant landed himself by acknowledging the deposit of his documents of title as guarantor in this affidavit for the creation of equitable mortgage for the loan availed by M/s. Malaysia Timber Suppliers. OS No.216/2010 was ultimately dismissed for non prosecution by Appellant, on 10.12.2015.

This Tribunal has summoned available records from DRT-I, Chennai and perused the records. It is seen from the copies of Writ Petition in WP No.7286/2006 filed by 1. M/s. Malaysia Timber Suppliers 2. Mrs. Jarina Begum 3. SNKM. Shahul Hameed and 4. P.S. Palani (Appellant) against Indian Bank and the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, it is claimed that P.S. Palani is the guarantor of the loan and had given his property in Survey No.75/2 bearing old door No.3/492, New door No.5/90, the present door No.3/859, in Madhanandhapuram, Porur, measuring 50 cents as mortgage in favour of Respondent Bank. The order passed in Original Application in OA 57/1998 by Learned Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chennai on 11.12.2000 shows that on behalf of all the four Defendants including the Appellant, one Advocate N. Natarajan filed Vakalat on 01.04.1999. When the case was posted to 24.06.1999, there was no representation for Defendants, and therefore, they were called absent and set ex parte. The Bank filed Proof Affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A30 had been marked. The Proof Affidavit of the Bank witness Mr. R. V. Ramani shows that the guarantee agreement executed by Appellant was marked as Exhibit A5. Letter dated 19.09.1991 for depositing the title documents, was marked as Exhibit A6, Settlement deed dated 11.10.1957, Settlement deed dated 04.08.1976, Sale Deed dated 11.06.1981, settlement deed dated 19.09.1983, Letter of undertaking by Appellant dated 19.01.1991, three encumbrance certificates and kist receipts had been marked as Exhibits A7 to A13 respectively. On the basis of the Proof Affidavit and Exhibits, Learned Presiding Officer found that the claim of the Bank was proved and allowed the Original Application. Thereafter, Debt Recovery Certificate in DRC No.193/2001 was issued. Then, it was transferred to DRT-II, Chennai and numbered as TDRC No.504/2004.

In the course of recovery proceedings, the property was sold to Mr. Suresh Muthiah on 21.09.2005. The proceedings dated 27.11.2007 of DRT-II, Chennai reads that OA 57/1998 had been received by transfer from DRT-I. It was earlier transferred to DRT-II by DRT-I, Chennai inadvertently and that transfer was recalled vide letter of DRT-I dated 20.04.2004. Therefore, the case record was transferred to DRT-I.

Again, DRT-I transferred the OA on the jurisdictional ground. However, the records do not contain Plaint, Proof Affidavit, documents, etc. On verification, it was found, these records could not be traced out. Thereafter, the case was taken on file by DRT-II, Chennai. Thus, the records, especially the OA proceedings and connected documents corroborates that the original documents had been misplaced from DRT-I, Chennai and the case had been transferred to DRT-II, Chennai without the original records. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 24.10.2005, the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, finding that the original records could not be traced and purchaser was not willing to continue with sale, cancelled the sale held in favour of Mr. Suresh Muthiah. Thereafter, the Bank initiated SARFAESI measures for sale of the property and sold the property in favour of the auction purchasers, viz. respondents 3 and 4.

As already discussed, the mortgage documents, Proof Affidavit filed before DRT-I and order passed by DRT-I in OA 57/1998, firmly establish, without an iota of doubt that the Appellant stood as guarantor for the loan availed by M/s. Malaysia Timber Suppliers by offering his property as security and created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. In this view of the matter, this Tribunal finds that the Appellant is a guarantor for the loan availed by M/s. Malaysia Timber Suppliers and executed mortgage by deposit of original title documents as a security for the loan.

When there is unimpeachable evidence to show that the Appellant had deposited his original title documents with intention to create equitable mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds for the loan availed by M/s. Malaysia Timber Suppliers, the point which next arises for consideration is how could these documents came in in possession of the Appellant, who had created the mortgage. We have already seen the Undertaking Letter dated 19.09.1991, Letter acknowledging the deposit of title deeds dated 19.09.1991 and Deed of Agreement of Guarantee dated 17.09.1991 executed by Appellant show that the original documents had been handed over to the Bank for creation of mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds. There is also an Affidavit, as discussed above, filed in OS No. 216/2010 on 09.07.2010 by the Appellant to confirm the deposit of his original title documents with the Bank. The Proof Affidavit filed in Original Application in OA 57/1998 shows that the original title documents of the Appellant along with other documents had been marked as Exhibits A1 to A30.

The available records received from DRT-II, Chennai, especially, the proceedings dated 29.11.2007 and 06.12.2007 show that when records had been received from DRT-I, Chennai, the original pleadings and documents were found missing. The Respondent Bank filed a Memo before DRT-II, Chennai on 06.10.2005 to trace the original documents and permit the Bank to peruse the documents and hand over the document to the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Chennai. The proceedings dated 08.02.2006 of DRT-I, Chennai shows that a decision was taken to issue a Certificate regarding non-availability of the original documents in DRT-I, Chennai. Therefore, it is clear that the original title documents had been missing from DRT-I, Chennai. How it was missed from the custody of DRT-I, Chennai is the question which looms large now. The only possible way that the original documents missed from DRT-I, Chennai is that the documents had been unlawfully taken by the Appellant with connivance of one or some of the staff members of DRT-I, Chennai from the custody of DRT-I, Chennai.

Admittedly, the original documents of title of the appellant which had been deposited by him with the respondent bank and marked as Exhibits had been unlawfully taken, rather stolen from the custody of DRT-I, Chennai. Those documents are available with the appellant and he produced the documents before this Tribunal as directed by this Tribunal. There is a legal presumption that a person who in possession of stolen goods after theft is either the thief or received the stolen goods (Documents in this case) knowing them to be stolen. Thus, the only possibility of missing the documents from the custody of DRT-I, Chennai is because of stealing the documents by the appellant with the connivance of staff members of DRT-, Chennai. Suitable orders in this regard will be passed in the concluding part of the order.

In view of the discussions held above, it is answered for Point No.1 that appellant was a guarantor/mortgagor for the loan availed by the principal borrower viz., M/s Malaysia Timber Suppliers. Point No.2 is answered that appellant deposited original documents of title for creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of title document. Point No.3 is answered that appellant had illegally and unlawfully taken, rather stolen the original title documents produced by him for creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed from the custody of DRT-I, Chennai with the connivance of one or some of the staff members of DRT-I, Chennai.

The next point to be considered is whether the Appellant can claim that the sale held in favour of Auction Purchasers to be set aside, for the reason that there is discrepancy in the extent of the property and when the allegation of fraud is made, it is only the Civil Court which has the jurisdiction to try this issue and not this Tribunal. Especially, when in the counter filed by the Auction Purchasers, allegations are made against the Bank that the Bank had cheated the Auction Purchasers by selling the property for which the Bank had no title documents and issued Sale Notice for sale of 50 cents of land, issued Sale Certificate for 50 cents against the available extent of 47.25 cents, more so, when Auction Purchasers prayed only for refund of sale consideration with interest and filed Writ Petition in WP No.8403/2013 for the same relief.

Perusal of the Counter Affidavit of the Auction Purchasers shows that the Auction Purchasers paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.3,06,25,000/- and Sale Certificate was executed on 27.05.2010 and registered on 08.06.2010. In the Counter, it is stated that Respondent No.3 filed Writ Petition in WP No. 8403/2013 seeking a prayer against Respondents therein to hand over the original sale deed of the property and hand over vacant possession. Thereafter, Appellant was impleaded as a party to the proceedings in Writ Petition and prayer was amended for cancelling the registration of the property in the name of Auction Purchasers and for direction to Respondent Bank to pay a sum of Rs.35,67,51,697/-towards sale consideration, compensation towards mental agony and trauma suffered by Auction Purchasers and litigation costs. Of course, that Petition was disposed by giving direction to approach DRAT.

Allegations are made in the Counter Affidavit against the Bank stating that,

Learned Counsel for Appellant, as already stated, relied on the decision in Delhi Development Authority case for the proposition that when there is discrepancy in the sale proceedings, especially, omission to mention encumbrance, will be a cause for setting aside the sale. True it is, in that ruling it is stated that if encumbrance is not disclosed in the sale proclamation, sale is liable to be set aside.

Here in this case, the Auction Purchasers now claim that they want property sold in auction, of course, with a request to pay them the excess sale price paid by them for 2.75 cents, which is not available on the date of issuance of Sale Notice and sale.

Ordinarily, omission to mention encumbrance, which has bearing on the property to be conveyed, in the Sale Notice is a serious issue. However, in the case before hand, the facts are totally different. Here, it was already found that the Appellant had illegally taken away, rather stolen the title documents deposited by him with the bank from the custody of DRT-I, Chennai. Therefore, the Appellant cannot seek to set aside the sale on the ground that the sale of larger extent than what was available on the ground by failing to mention the sale of 2.75 cents, in the sale Notice and sale. Therefore, this decision cannot be applied to the benefit of Appellant.

In the case of Central Bank of India case, it is true that when an issue with regard to adoption came up for consideration, it was answered as follows:-

So far as the Anil Roy case, it is true that long delay in pronouncing the judgement would result in omitting to consider some important points canvassed during the arguments and shatter evaluation of evidence of the litigation. However, the Appeal was decided on its own merits on the basis of evidence available. No doubt, long delay in disposal of the case, would diminish the public confidence, especially, of the litigants in the justice delivering system.

It is not urged before this Tribunal that because of the long delay, any of the points canvassed before the Tribunal, was omitted to be considered. Moreover, the proceedings of the Tribunal as to the date of reservation of order and what happened during the intervening period, is not made available to find whether there was actually long delay as claimed by Appellant. Therefore, this decision is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

As stated in the initial paragraph, SA 122/2010 was filed only on the ground that the Appellant is neither a guarantor nor a mortgagor, he has not mortgaged or deposited his title documents for creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. From the documents produced by Appellant before the Tribunal and starting from the issuance of Demand Notice, Possession Notice, Sale Notice, there is no ground made out for setting aside the sale on the ground of violation of any of the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Violation of the mandatory procedures, if any, had not been pleaded at all. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, on evidence, found that sale was held after following the necessary and mandatory procedures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Therefore, this Tribunal finds that Learned Presiding Officer, DRT –I, Chennai has rightly dismissed the Securitisation

Application and this Tribunal finds that there is no cause made out for taking a different view from the view taken by Learned Presiding Officer.

In this view of the matter, order of Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai is confirmed. Resultantly this appeal is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the Securitization Application, the next logical conclusion is to uphold the sale held in favour of Auction Purchasers, reiterating confirmation made by the Authorised Officer. As already discussed, though Auction Purchasers initially prayed for refund of sale consideration along with interest and compensation etc., because of the non-availability of original title documents, and now that the original title documents are available in this Tribunal, they fall back on prayer in the Counter Affidavit and in the Memo, for handing over the original title documents of the secured asset and possession. When the sale in favour of auction purchasers is upheld, the consequential relief they are entitled are for the return of original title documents and possession of secured asset.

Therefore, the Registrar, DRAT, Chennai is directed to hand over the original title documents produced by Appellant, as directed by this Tribunal, to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 namely, Indian Bank and the Authorised Officer of Indian Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch No.II, Circle Office Building, Fourth Floor, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008, within a period of one week from today, under proper acknowledgment. On receipt of the original documents, the Respondents 1 and 2, in turn, are directed to hand over the original title deeds to the Auction Purchasers namely Respondents 3 and 4, Mr. Jawar Hussain and Mrs. Ayeshath Jaseela, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the original title documents from this Tribunal, under proper acknowledgement. Respondents 1 and 2 are also directed to take appropriate steps for handing over physical possession of the secured asset to the Auction Purchasers in the manner known to law. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to refund the sale consideration proportionate to 2.75 cents to the auction purchasers with 9% interest per annum (simple) from its coffer from the date of payment by the auction purchaser till the date of payment.

Accordingly, Point Nos.4 and 5 are answered.

In the result, following order is passed;

Appeal in RA (SA) 36/2016 is dismissed with the costs of the respondents, by confirming the order dated 13.3.2015 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai in SA No.122/2010.

Registrar, DRAT, Chennai is directed to hand over the original title documents produced by Appellant, as directed by this Tribunal, to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 namely, Indian Bank and the Authorised Officer of Indian Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch No.II, Circle Office Building, Fourth Floor, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008, within a period of one week from today under proper acknowledgment.

On receipt of the original documents, the Respondents 1 and 2, in turn, are directed to hand over the original title deeds to the Auction Purchasers namely Respondents 3 and 4, Mr. Jawar Hussain and Mrs. Ayeshath Jaseela, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the original title documents from this Tribunal, under proper acknowledgement.

Respondents 1 and 2 are also directed to take appropriate steps for handing over physical possession of the secured asset to the Auction Purchasers, in the manner known to law.

Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to refund the sale consideration proportionate to 2.75 cents to the auction purchasers with 9% interest per annum (simple) from its coffer from the date of payment by the auction purchaser till the date of payment.

Registrar, DRT-I, Chennai is directed to initiate appropriate Departmental Proceeding against the concerned staff member and give a Criminal Compliant against the concerned for the missing documents and submit a report on the steps taken, within a period of one month from today.

All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.