Ramgarhia Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs Urmila Chopra And Ors.

Ranjit Singh, J

The appellant-Bank had sanctioned term loan for addition, alteration and renovation of the house to the tune of Rs. 7 lacs on August 16, 2008. To secure this loan, borrower-respondent No. 4 Smt. Harmeet Kaur created an equitable mortgage of her residential property. The loan was repayable in monthly instalment of Rs. 13,020/-. When the borrower failed to repay the loan amount, the account of respondent No. 4 was declared as NPA. It was showing debit balance of Rs. 6,80,855/- as on 30th September, 2011. The Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act recalling the loan amount. Respondent No. 1 Mrs. Urmila Chopra came to file SA No. 195/2012 on learning about the measures initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the house claiming that she was a bona fide purchaser of the property bearing No. J-4, 3rd floor, front side with roof rights, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. Mrs. Urmila Chopra had purchased this property from Mr. Surender Chopra respondent No. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 15th November, 2010. Mr. Surender Chopra had purchased this property from Mr. Amit Kumar respondent No. 3, on 18th October, 2007 by registered GPA who, in turn, had purchased the same from Mrs. Harmeet Kaur, respondent No. 4, borrower of the appellant Bank.

The Tribunal below has also noticed that Mrs. Harmeet Kaur, respondent No. 4 had purchased the property in question from Mr. Mahinder Singh on January 4, 2000. Said Mr. Mahinder Singh was not a stranger to Smt. Harmeet Kaur being her father. In this sale deed, it is recorded that initially Mr. Swaroop Chand Tyagi and Mrs. Shanti Devi had transferred the property in question to Mr. Suresh Kumar son of Mr. Shakti Ram by way of GPA, which was duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at page 316 on July 8, 1988. Mr. Suresh Kumar further transferred this property through registered GPA in favour of his son Mr. Pradeep Kumar on November 29, 1988. Mr. Pradeep Kumar then transferred the same to Mr. Kundan Lal on October 26, 1990 vide a registered GPA. Mr. Kundan Lal had transferred this property by an attested GPA to Mr. Rakesh Juneja, who got executed a conveyance deed in his favour on November 18, 1999 and thereafter transferred the property to Mr. Mahinder Singh by way of registered GPA on December 6, 1999.

Respondent Smt. Urmila Chopra accordingly claimed complete chain of documents to show that she was a bona fide purchaser of this property without notice of mortgage. On the other hand, the Bank also claimed charge on the basis of same very title documents. The Tribunal below has found that chain of documents with the Bank starts from 19th December, 2002. Sale deed was executed by Mr. Mahinder Singh Arora in favour of Smt. Harmeet Kaur on 19th December, 2002. On this basis, the Bank has claimed the mortgage of the property in its favour. The Bank had granted loan to respondent No. 4 on October 1, 2004 who had then executed mortgage deed of the property by deposit of title deed.

On the basis of these pleadings, the Tribunal below has rightly wondered as to how two sale deeds could be executed in respect of the same property. On one hand, respondent No. 4 was claiming her title on the basis of sale deed executed on 19th December, 2002 by Mr. Mahinder Singh. Mr. Mahinder Singh had executed this sale deed in favour of his own daughter. Mr. Mahinder Singh had also executed another sale deed in favour of his same daughter Smt. Harmeet Kaur in the year 2000 on the basis of which subsequent sale took place finally leading to sale in favour of respondent No. 1. It is thus clear that when Mr. Mahinder Singh had executed sale deed in favour of Mrs. Harmeet Kaur in the year 2000, he was left with no title to execute another sale deed in favour of his own daughter in 2002. This subsequent sale deed is with the Bank to claim mortgage in its favour. The Tribunal below is justified in observing that there is clear intention on the part of respondent No. 4 Mrs. Harmeet Kaur to deceive the appellant-Bank, The father and daughter had connived with each other to take this loan from the appellant-Bank on the basis of this invalid document due to earlier sale deed having been executed leaving no right with Mr. Mahinder Singh to execute another sale deed. If the Bank had been vigilant enough to examine the complete chain specially so when sale was by father to his own daughter, it may have succeeded in unearthing this fraud. It is stated by the Counsel for the Bank that Mrs. Harmeet Kaur had given Power of Attorney in favour of her father for selling this property. This ought to have raised suspicion so as to know as to the need for father to seek attorney for sale after sale of the property to his daughter while earlier he had full authority to sell the same being owner. On the other hand, respondent No. 1 appears to be a bona fide purchaser, who had carried due diligence and had obtained complete chain of documents while purchasing this property. The Tribunal below has rightly held respondent No. 1 to be a bona fide purchaser. The Tribunal is also justified in finding that the Bank had failed to take proper due diligence. The Bank still will have right to recover the amount from respondent No. 4-borrower, whereas respondent No. 1 who has exercised due diligence would be left high and dry in case of interference in the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal below does not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit.