kept in dark as to the date of hearing or the description of the proceedings cannot be completely rejected. More importantly, that the petitioner sold the property to Mr.Rajesh Khurana on 09.06.1989, through a registered sale deed also cannot be doubted, given the two decrees made by this Court in CS(OS) 1405-07/2011, dated 06.02.2014. The other important aspect is that the equitable mortgage on the basis of which the respondent bank claims its rights was an event that occurred after the property was sold by the petitioner. The mortgage by deposit of title deed and the guarantee in favour of the bank concededly took place on 23.07.1989. Additionally, the Court notices that the signatures which are on the guarantee deed do not appear to be that of the petitioner from a comparison with the admitted signatures. This is also borne out by comparison with his signature on Vakalatnama. Having regard to all the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the since the petitioner has offered to pay ₹10 lakhs to the bank, there should be a quietus to the dispute. Accordingly, upon the petitioner depositing ₹ 10 lakhs with the respondent within three months from today, IOB is directed to record full and final settlement and treat all its claims as having been satisfied as against the petitioner. The bank shall in such event also release the title deed to the suit property. In these peculiar circumstances, the bank is hereby directed in the event of receipt of ₹ 10 lakhs to handover all the papers in connection with the suit property to the petitioner to avoid further complications. However, this order would not in any way preclude IOB to pursue its remedy against the borrower i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
