Pnb Housing Finance Ltd vs Syndicate Bank And Ors

P.K. Bhasin, J

I have heard Counsel for PNB Housing Finance Ltd. and Counsel for Union Bank of India. Other parties are unrepresented. I am proceeding to dispose of these appeals by a common order as real issue involved in both these appeals are common.

This is a case where three Banks and one financial institution (PNB Housing Finance Ltd.) are all claiming to be secured creditors in respect of one property, i.e. House No. 93, Ground Floor, Pocket-12, Sector-20, Rohini, Delhi. It is undisputed that the title deeds in possession of each one of these lenders are different though the borrower was the same. Syndicate Bank filed an O.A. under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 in which besides impleading its borrowers, PNB Housing Finance Ltd. and Union Bank of India were also impleaded as defendants. The said O.A. came to be allowed finally in favour of Syndicate Bank, vide impugned order dated 24.9.2016, in which the learned DRT had held that Syndicate Bank had priority of charge over PNB Housing Finance Ltd. and Union Bank of India. However, Union Bank of India had already succeeded in auctioning the aforesaid mortgaged property and had realized a sum of Rs. 26.51 lacs. The auction purchaser was one Madhu Jain. During the course of hearing of these two appeals, Union Bank of India was directed to deposit the sale proceeds of the aforesaid property with this Tribunal, which it did.

The controversy which was to be resolved by the DRT was as to how there were four mortgagees in respect of same property and that, too, on the basis of separate title documents. The learned DRT, however, did not resolve that controversy and simply went on to decide as to whose mortgage was prior in time, and accepting the case of Syndicate Bank that its mortgage was prior in time, its claim as mortgagee was accepted. However, in the opinion of this Court, and which opinion even the learned Counsel present do not dispute, only the DRT could have gone into the question as to which of the title documents in possession of these four lending institutions is genuine and which exercise ought to have been undertaken by the DRT because undisputedly all the four title deeds could not be genuine and in fact even all of them could be forged also. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside to the extent the charge of Syndicate Bank has been upheld. The matter is remanded back to the DRT to go into the question as to which of the title deeds being relied upon by these lending institutions before it is a genuine one and then to arrive at a fresh decision. Depending upon that decision, the amount lying deposited with this Tribunal shall be dealt with at that stage and it would be open for the DRT to take a decision as to who is entitled to get the sale proceeds of the property in question which Union Bank of India had received by auctioning the same.

It is needless to state that all the four lending institutions involved in this case will in any event be at liberty to continue with their efforts to recover their dues from their respective borrowers/guarantors through any other legal remedy which may be available to them.

The DRT shall now take up the matter on 6.10.2018 at 2 p.m. for giving appropriate direction in the matter. It is, however, clarified that in case any of the parties desires to adduce any additional evidence in the O.A., only one opportunity will be given for that purpose and the O.A. shall be decided afresh limited to the aforesaid aspect only within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

The DRT record be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this order.