the Bank is 2nd January 2002 and the third party purchaser i.e. the present petitioner purchased the said property in the year 2005. The Bank had advanced loan to respondent Nos.1 and 2 before DRT, in the year 2002. The Original Application came to be decided on 2nd January 2006. The Bank had issued a cheque of Rs.16 lakh in favour of M/s.Regal Enterprises who was the Power of Attorney Holder of the promoter of the building. According to the Bank, M/s.Regal Enterprises were competent to deal with the property, but DRAT found, on perusal of records, that only M/s.Anand Developers was admittedly a builder who was in-charge of the building. Therefore, according to DRAT, the amount in question paid by the Bank to M/s.Regal Enterprises was correct one and the respondents were not entitled to claim any relief against the Bank, the appellant before DRAT. It was further opined that if at all the respondents feel that they were cheated by the promoter, they are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate authority and the order of DRAT will not come in the way of such proceedings. It is also opined that after obtaining decree and attachment on the flat in question by the DRT the respondent before DRT have taken steps claiming the property. Whether the present petitioners had acquired right, title and interest in the property in question becomes a disputed question of fact since they have to establish the alleged fraud played by the borrower, developer on the owner, if at all they all colluded to cheat not only the creditor Bank but also the subsequent purchaser. In other words, the title of the present petitioner over the property in question said to have been acquired in 2005 is under cloud which cannot be declared in the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution but the petitioner has to approach the
