AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant filed S.A. bearing No.288/2024 titled as Ram Naresh V Indian Overseas Bank which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. The appellant filed an interim application bearing I.A. No.632/2026 to stay the notice dated 02.03.2026 issued by the Court Receiver for taking physical possession of the subject property on 25.03.2026 and DRT-II, Delhi vide impugned order dated 24.03.2026 has dismissed the application bearing I.A. No.632/2026. The relevant portion of impugned order dated 24.03.2026 is reproduced as under:
6.The main contention of the Ld. counsel of the applicant is that in the order dated 05.11.2024 it has been wrongly mentioned in para no.4 that the applicant is claiming the property on the basis of unregistered documents. It is submitted that there is a registered power of attorney in favour of the applicant and the applicant is in the settled possession of the property and therefore, the applicant cannot be dispossessed from the property. It is further submitted that the applicant is neither the borrower, nor the guarantor of the loan. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the respondent bank has submitted that the interim prayer of the applicant has already been dismissed on 05.11.2024 and 27.11.2025 and therefore, the third application on the same ground cannot be entertained. I have gone through the record. From perusal of the record it is clear that the applicant was claiming to be the owner of the property on the basis of the general power of attorney, agreement to sell, Will, receipts and possession letter. This Tribunal has considered the contention of the applicant and has held on 05.11.2024 that the applicant cannot be deemed to be the owner of the property in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp case. Now the applicant is claiming that he is the registered power of attorney holder of the property. Merely because the power of attorney is registered, the applicant cannot be deemed to be the owner of the property. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the immovable property having value of more than Rs.100/- can only be transferred by a registered sale deed. Admittedly, there is no registered sale deed in favour of the applicant. Therefore, merely because the power of attorney is registered, the applicant cannot be deemed to be the owner of the property. Therefore, the contention of the applicant has no force.
In view of the above the IA No.632/2026 is liable to be dismissed.
Sh. Parth Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant has not taken any loan from the Financial Institution and has purchased the subject property through registered general power of attorney and the appellant is in the possession of the subject property since 2009. It is also stated that the appellant has also filed Civil Suit and vide order dated 12.11.2025 the respondent was restrained from taking illegal possession of the subject property. It is also argued that a fraud was committed with the appellant as such the appellant is entitled for the protection from being dispossessed.
The impugned order reflects that the appellant on earlier occasion also filed similar applications which were dismissed vide order dated 05.11.2024 and 27.11.2025. DRT-II, Delhi also observed that on the basis of documents as submitted by the appellant, the appellant cannot be accepted as the owner of the subject property. The perusal of impugned order dated 24.03.2026 reflects that DRT-II, Delhi in the impugned order dated 24.03.2026 has considered all the relevant legal and factual issues. The similar applications have already been dismissed on earlier two occasions.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. Hence, appeal is dismissed without being devoid of merit.