AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant filed S.A. bearing T.S.A No. 258/2023 titled as S.K. Verma Through its Karta Sh. Surender Kumar Verma V. Central Bank of India & another which was stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. The DRT-II, Delhi vide order dated 23.09.2025 has dismissed the T.S.A No. 258/2023. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:
6.The main contention of the applicant is that the applicant has purchased the subject property from defendant no. 2 vide sale deed dated 02.09.2014 and since then the applicant became the lawful owner and in possession of the subject property. It is further submitted that the applicant is neither the borrower nor the guarantor of the loan. It is further submitted that defendant no. 2 has sold the property without informing any encumbrance on the subject property. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondent bank has no authority to proceed against the subject property. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank has submitted that Smt. Mamta Arora and Sh. Pawan Arora alongwith Sh. Shailendra Singh approached the bank in May 2011 for the sanction of the loan and the loan was sanctioned on 10.05.2011. The equitable mortgage of the subject property was executed on the same date and therefore, the property is mortgaged with the bank w.e.f. 10.05.2011 and therefore, any sale made thereafter by the defendant no. 2 is invalid. It is submitted that the charge of the bank is prior to the charge of the applicant and therefore, the respondent bank has every authority to proceed under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as the borrowers have failed to pay the debt.
7.In this regard I have perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is clear that defendant no. 2 Smt. Mamta Arora was the owner of the property and she has mortgaged the property with the respondent bank on 10.05.2011. She subsequently sold the property to the applicant bank on 02.09.2014. As the property has already been mortgaged with the bank Smt. Mamta Arora has no authority to sell the property to the applicant. The charge of the respondent bank is prior to the charge of the applicant. Therefore, the contention of the applicant has no force. The contention of the applicant is that the original sale deed is with the applicant. But the applicant has failed to prove the same. Therefore, the contention of the applicant cannot be accepted.
It is reflecting from the record that the appellant has claimed to have purchase the subject property vide Sale Deed dated 02.09.2014 from defendant no. 2, Mamta Arora who is respondent no. 2.
It is also reflecting from the record that the respondent no. 2 i.e. Mamta Arora along with Sh. Pawan Arora and Sh. Shailendra Singh approached the bank in May 2011 for the sanction of loan and the loan was sanctioned on 10.05.2011, and created mortgaged of the subject property with respondent no. 1. The DRT-II, Delhi observed that respondent no. 2 i.e. Mamta Arora was the owner of the property and she has mortgaged the property with the respondent no. 1 on 10.05.2011 and thereafter the property was sold to the appellant on 02.09.2014. The DRT-II, Delhi, due to this reason dismissed the T.S.A. No. 258/2023.
Sh. Prashant Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for appellant during the course of argument, has referred Para 8 of the appeal wherein it was mentioned that the respondent no. 2 had purchased the said property on 25.03.2011 after availing a housing loan facility from LIC housing Finance Limited and said loan was discharged by the appellant who has also obtained the titled documents from LIC Housing Finance Limited.
Sh. Prashant Kumar Srivastava, Advocate vehemently argued that the appellant does not have any connection with respondent no. 1 regarding availing of loan after mortgaging the subject property. It is reflecting from the record that the mortgaged was created by the appellant in favour of respondent no. 1 before selling the subject property to the appellant vide sale deed dated 02.09.2014. The DRT-II, Delhi has rightly observed that on 02.09.2014, the respondent no. 2 was not having the authority to sell the property to the appellant.
There is no illegality or infirmity which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.