encumbrance certificate. Had the Recovery Officer verified the encumbrance certificate, he would have known that the property was already sold in favour of Appellant, Mr. T.N. Rajakumar. Thus, the attachment of the property, and subsequent sale in favour of Mr. S. Ramakrishnan, was made without properly following the procedure under II Schedule to the Income Act, 1961 and Manual issued to the Tax Recovery Officers. The sale held by Recovery Officer in favour of Respondent, S. Ramakrishnan is nothing but fraud committed against the Appellant, T.N Rajakumar. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., ought not have proceeded with sale of the property. A criminal complaint was registered against the officials of the Punjab and Sind Bank. There is no evidence produced by the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., that the mortgagor had deposited the original title deeds. When property was already sold in SARFAESI action, there is no more valid mortgage and right of sale in favour of Respondent S. Ramakrishnan. Thus, it is submitted by Learned Counsel for Appellant, T. N. Rajakumar that sale in favour of T. N. Rajakumar was prior in point of time and sale in favour of S. Ramakrishnan was later in point of time; and
