AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondents filed S.A. bearing No. 130/2017 titled as Sheela Devi & another V. Punjab National Bank & another which was stated to be pending before DRT-II, Chandigarh.
The DRT-II, Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 09.01.2025 allowed the S.A by holding that the appellant did not have any right to enforce the security interest in respect to the property in question. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as under:
8.It is admitted on the record that the originally Sh. Om Parkash Sharma was the owner of the property on the basis of the sale-deed executed by Sh. Ram Kishan in his favor on 15.12.1978 vide sale-deed No.3215. Both the parties have produced the original title-deeds in favor of Sh. Om Parkash Sharma. Whereas the Applicants have produced on the record the certified copy of the title-deed in favor of Sh. Om Parkash Sharma, which matches with the original title-deed; the certified copy of the title-deed in favor of Sh. Om Parkash Sharma, which has been produced by the Bank, does not match with the original title-deed produced by them. Whereas on the original title-deeds in favor of Sh. Om Parkash Sharma which has been produced by the Applicants, the stamp duty of Rs. 750 plus 150 has been mentioned; in the title-deeds produced by the Bank, the stamp duty has been mentioned as 500 plus 100 by 3, i.e. 800. Further, the certified copy of the title-deeds produced by the Bank matches with the title-deeds produced by the Applicants. This clearly shows that the title-deed produced by the Bank is not a genuine one. Be that as it may, there is no proof on the record that Sh. Om Parkash Sharma had died when the security interest was created by Sh. Satish Yadav in favor of the Bank. I have also perused the Will. In the original Will, though it is mentioned that Sh. Om Parkash Sharma have left behind some legal heirs, yet he has executed this Will in favor of Sh. Deep Chand. In the Will it is not mentioned as to how Sh. Deep Chand is related to him. I am of the considered view that OBC did not exercise proper care while granting the loan to Sh. Satish Yadav. The upshot of the entire discussion is that the SA is hereby allowed and it is hereby held that the Bank has no right to enforce the security interest in respect of the property in question. SA is allowed. The original documents be returned.
A copy of this Final Order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.
The perusal of impugned order dated 09.01.2025 reflects that the DRT-II, Chandigarh observed that the title-deed produced by the appellant was not genuine and there was no evidence to reflect that Sh. Om Parkash Sharma had died when the security interest was created by Sh. Satish Yadav who was borrower in favour of the appellant. The DRT-II, Chandigarh also observed that the predecessor of the appellant i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce has not taken proper care and exercise while granting the loan to Sh. Satish Yadav.
The perusal of entire record reflects that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by DRT-II, Chandigarh which was passed after appropriate and proper appreciation of factual and legal position.
The present appeal is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.