Dismissed

Mahishamardini Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRAT7 Jul 2025REGULAR APPEAL/18/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Upon appeal against dismissal of a securitisation application, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal held the Appellant lacked locus standi to challenge the sale due to an unregistered agreement for sale failing to confer title, dismissing the appeal and affirming the lower court order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the impugned judgment and order of the DRT affirming the sale was upheld.

Mahishamardini Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. versus… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶4

Appeal No. 18 of 2023

¶5

(Arising out of S.A. 20 of 2019 in DRT-II, Hyderabad)

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

CHAIRPERSON

¶8

M/s Mahishamardini Griha Nirman Private Limited, Branch Office at 4^th Floor, Salarpuria Winsor No.3, Ulsur Road, Bangalore - Represented by its DGM - Sri Shyam Surekha, S/o Late B. K. Surekha, R/o 6-68 to 32, Kavadidiguda Main Road, Secunderabad-500 003.

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Secunderabad Branch, 1-2-61 & 62, Parklane, Secunderabad;

¶12

Indian Overseas Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager, Secunderabad Branch, 1-2-61 & 62, Parklane, Secunderabad;

¶13

M/s. Bipasha Realtors Private Limited, 606, 6^th Floor, Karan Center, SD Road, Park Lane, Secunderabad, represented by its Director, K. Srinivas Rao, Son of Late K. Swamy, R/o. Plot No. 62, Road No. 4, Trimurthy Colony, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad;

¶14

M/s. Bipasha Realtors Private Limited, 606, 6^th Floor, Karan Center, SD Road, Park Lane, Secunderabad, represented by its Director, P. Ganesh, Son of P. Venkataiah, R/o. Plot No.15-3-97, Gowliguda Chaman, Hyderabad;

¶15

M/s. MSN Laboratories Limited, Regd. office at MSN Home, Plot No. C-24, Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad 500 018, represented by its General Manager, M. Udaya Kumar Reddy, Son of M. Keshava Reddy, R/o. Hyderabad;

¶16

Mrs. Laxmi Prasuna Manne, H.No.8-2-293/82/A/591, Jubilee Hills Co-Operative Housing Society Road No.31, Hyderabad, Telengana, P.I.N. - 500 033;

¶17

Mr. Achyuth Reddy Manne, H.No.8-2-293/82/A/591, Jubilee Hills Co-Operative Housing Society Road No.31, Hyderabad, Telengana, P.I.N. - 500 033.

¶18

… Respondents

¶19

Counsel for Appellants	…	Mr. Arijit Bardhan Mr. Prasenjit Pal
Counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2/ Bank	…	Mr. Narayan Debnath (Virtual)
Counsel for Respondents No. 5, 6 & 7	…	Mr. S. Ravi, Learned Senior Advocate (Virtual)

¶20

¶21

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata Ms. Anshumala Bansal Ms. Vaishnavi

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

: 07^th July, 2025

¶24

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶25

1. Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order dated 2^nd July, 2019, passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad, in S.A. 20 of 2019 (Old S.A. No. 163 of 2012 of DRT-I, Hyderabad) (M/s. Mahishamardini Griha Nirman Private Limited -vs- Indian Overseas Bank & 4 Others) dismissing the Securitisation Application filed by the Appellants. 2. At the very outset it is to be mentioned that against the judgment and order of the DRT Appellants preferred a Writ Petition No. 2523 of 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad which was decided on 15^th July, 2022 dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to avail remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Thereafter, Appellant prerferred an appeal.

¶26

3. As per the pleadings of the parties, the facts of the case, in brief, are that Respondents No. 3 and 4, namely, M/s. Bipasha Realtors Private Limited, are purchasers of the secured assets in the auction held on 15.11.2006 for a value of Rs.31.25 crores. Area was 14.20.4 acres. EMD of Rs.3.60 crore followed by Rs.2.40 crore was deposited on 13.12.2006 leaving a balance of Rs.25.25 crore. On 21.12.2006 Respondents No. 3 and 4 entered into an unregistered agreement of sale with the Appellants for sale of 25% of undivided share of total extent of land purchased

¶27

¶28

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata by them for an amount of Rs.7,81,25,000.00. An amount of Rs.1.00 crore was paid by the Appellants. In the agreement of sale dated 21.12.2006 right was given to the Respondents No. 3 and 4 to raise advances from financial institution/Banks by creating mortgage over the entire extent of land. Balance amount was paid by the Appellant to Respondent No. 3 and 4 on 3.4.2007. Sale deed in favour of Respondents No. 3 and 4 with regard to auction sale dated 15.11.2026 was registered vide Sale Deed No. 9552 of 2007 dated 15.11.2006 but the Sale Deed by the Respondents No. 3 and 4 in favour of the Appellant was not executed. 4. An Arbitration Application, being No. 66 of 2009, was filed by the Appellants which was allowed on 30^th April, 2010 appointing Mr. Justice N. Sanjeeva Reddy, as Arbitrator, which is pending. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have taken term loan of Rs.25.00 crore from Respondent No. 2 Bank, i.e. Indian Overseas Bank, on 21.12.2007. There was default in payment of the instalments. Proceedings under SARFAESI Act was initiated by the Bank. Sale Notice dated 18.9.2010 was challenged by filing W.P. 23898 of 2010 which was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court with a direction to pay the dues in two equal monthly instalments. SLP (C) No. 33800 of 2010 was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the order of the Hon’ble High Court wherein Hon’ble Apex Court modified the order directing the Respondents No. 3 and 4 to pay the dues by February, 2011. 5. A Writ Petition No. 9785 of 2011 was filed by the Appellant wherein interim order was passed by the Hon’ble

¶29

¶30

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata High Court. Respondent No. 5, namely

¶31

M/s. MSN Laboratories Limited, is the Auction Purchaser who purchased the property under private treaty. Sale Certificate was issued in his favour on 17.3.2011. It is stated, that auction sale is in contravention to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 33800 of 2010. W.P. 9785 of 2011 was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court with liberty to the Appellant to approach the DRT. Thereafter Securitisation Application was filed. 6. It is alleged that the secured assets were more than Rs.50.00 crore while the Bank sold it at Rs.30.00 crore. Initially Bank proposed to sell the secured assets through public auction. Respondents No. 3 and 4 gave undertaking before the Arbitrator not to alienate the property; however, they sold it through private treaty. There is violation of Rules 8 (2), 8 (5), 8 (6) and 8 (7) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). 7. Respondents No. 1 and 2, Bank, as well as Respondent No. 5, Auction Purchaser, filed reply statement while no reply was filed by Respondents No. 3 and 4 before the Learned DRT. It is stated that the dispute between the Appellant as well as Respondents No. 3 and 4 could not be dealt with in the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Appellant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. Appellant has no locus standi to challenge the Securitisation action initiated by the Bank. Initially, Sale Notice dated 17.9.2010 was issued with the reserve price of Rs.2812.98 lac but no

¶32

¶33

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata bids were received. Respondents No. 3 and 4 failed to comply with the orders and pay the amount as per order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 33800 of 2010 by 28^th February, 2011. Accordingly, with their consent, sale through private negotiations under Rule 8 (5) (d) of the Rules was conducted. Auction Purchaser deposited the amount and excess sale proceeds are transferred to Respondents No. 3 and 4. Sale Certificate was issued on 17.3.2011. Agreement of Sale in favour of the Appellant dated 21.12.2006 is an unregistered document. No rights could be conferred on the basis of that document in favour of the Appellant. Bank is not a party either to the agreement or to the arbitration proceedings. All the provisions of laws were followed by the Bank.

¶34

8. Auction Purchaser also filed a reply, as submitted by the Bank.

¶35

9. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, Learned DRT framed the following issue for adjudication:

¶36

“Whether the Applicant made out any valid ground for quashing the sale held on 27.10.2010 and sale certificate dated 17.3.2011 and revised sale certificate dated 23.12.2011 issued in favour of the 5^th Respondent.”

¶37

10. Learned DRT arrived at a finding that the Appellant got executed an unregistered agreement for sale in his favour which does not confer any right. Further, Respondents No. 3 and 4 consented for sale of the secured assets by private treaty which is permissible under Rule 8 (5)(d) of the Rules. Arbitration proceedings are still pending. Accordingly dismissed the Securitisation Application.

¶38

¶39

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata 11. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order, Appellants preferred the appeal.

¶40

12. I have heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant as well as the Respondent Bank and the Auction Purchaser and perused the record.

¶41

13. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that undisputedly an agreement for sale was executed by Respondents No. 3 and 4 in favour of the Appellant on 21.12.2006 which was an unregistered document. There was an arbitration clause in the agreement. Accordingly, as controversy arose, an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act was filed and an Arbitrator was appointed by the Hon’ble High Court.

¶42

14. Learned Counsel further submits that loan was taken by the Respondents No. 3 and 4 from Respondent No.2, Bank, on 21.12.2007 while the agreement for sale in favour of the Appellant but prior to it, i.e. 21.12.2006. Bank was duly informed about the agreement of sale executed in favour of the Appellant but the Sale Notice was issued by the Bank on 17.9.2010 which was challenged by filing the Writ Petition No. 23898 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court wherein the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 27.10.2010 permitted the Appellant to make deposit of Rs.5.00 crore by 31.12.2010 and balance amount by monthly instalments by the end of April, 2011. Feeling aggrieved by the order, SLP (C) No. 33800 of 2010 was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court which was disposed of on 1.12.2010.

¶43

¶44

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata

¶45

15. Thereafter, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed between Respondents No. 3 and 4 and Respondent No. 5, Auction Purchaser, on 31.12.2010. Sale was conducted through private treaty in favour of Respondent No. 5 and Sale Certificate was issued in his favour on 17.3.2011.

¶46

16. It is further submitted that W.P. 12102 of 2011 was filed by the Appellants which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 12^th December, 2011. Against the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court SLP (C) No. 14283 of 2013 was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein liberty was granted to approach the DRT after rectifying the objections pointed out by the Registry of the DRT. Thereafter Securitization Application is filed.

¶47

17. It is submitted that impugned sale was conducted by private treaty which was challenged on the ground that there was collusion between the parties. Sale by private treaty was bad in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is further submitted that the private treaty cannot be resorted to unless there is a failure on the part of the Bank to sell in public auction.

¶48

18. It is further submitted that the loan was granted subsequent to the Agreement of Sale which was well within the knowledge of the Bank, hence the loan would always be subject to the Agreement of Sale.

¶49

19. It is further submitted that the conditions imposed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 33800 of 2010 were not complied. Accordingly, sale by private treaty was bad in

¶50

¶51

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata law. It is further submitted that the sale was simply postponed. No steps for public auction were taken. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Videocon Properties Limited -vs- Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & Others [(2004) 3 SCC 711] & Prateek Pradeep Agarwal -vs- Union of India (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 9185)

¶52

20. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent as well as Auction Purchaser vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that Appellant has no locus standi to prefer the Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 (1)(g) as amended by Andhra Pradesh Amendment in Registration Act, mandates with effect from 1.4.1999 that registration of agreement for sale is compulsory. Accordingly, the sale does not confer any right upon the Appellant. Hence all the pleas taken by the Appellant could not be looked into rather the appeal is liable to be dismissed merely on the ground that Appellant having no locus standi.

¶53

21. As far as the facts of the matter are concerned, Appellant is challenging the action of the Bank on the basis of an Unregistered Agreement for Sale dated 21^st December, 2006 which was executed between Respondents No. 3 and 4, i.e. M/s. Bipasha Realtors Private Limited and Appellant, M/s. Mahishamardini Griha Nirman Private Limited. For better appreciation the same is being quoted in the judgment:

¶54

¶55

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata

¶56

“WITNESSES AS FOLLOWS:

¶57

I. WHEREAS the Party of the First Part participated in the court auction sale on 15-11-2006 held in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhara Pradesh along with EMD of Rs.3,60,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Sixty Lakhs only) for land admeasuring 14 Ac. 20.4 Gs , RCC Buildings and Staff Quarters with Plinth Area of 52.512 Sft. And ACC Sheds with Plinth area of 1,59,700 Sqft. Situated at Sy.Nos. 13,21 and 411 situated in Patancheru, Medak District, Hyderabad belonging into M/s A.P. Scooters Ltd., (In Liqn.) morefully described in schedule hereunder which is more particularly described in the schedule hereinafter referred to as the "SCHEDULE PROPERTY" and; II. WHEREAS the Party of the First Part bid of Rs.31,25,00,000/(Rupees Thirty One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs only) for the schedule property was accepted and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court by order dated: 16-11-2006 in favour of Party of the First part and communicated through letter No. OL/AP/AP/RCC5/93/AR/2006, dated 17.11.2006 of Official Liquidator, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and and directed the Party of the First Part to deposit balance consideration of Rs.27,75,00,000/(Rupees Twenty Seven Crores Seventy Five Lakhs only) and the Party of the First Part have already paid Rs.2,40,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Forty Lakhs only) which duly acknowledged by the office of the official liquidator vide receipt No. 1965, dated: 13-122006 and balance amount of Rs.25,25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Crores Twenty Five Lakhs only) is to be paid to the office of the Liquidator, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and:

¶58

III. WHEREAS the Party of the First Part and the Party of the Second Part discussed among themselves and Party of the First Part has agreed to sell 25% an undivided right, interest and title in the entire Schedule Property for consideration of Rs. 7,81,25,000/and Party of the Second Part agreed to purchase the same. IV. NOW THIS AGREEMENT OF SALE WITNESSES AS

¶59

FOLLOWS:

¶60

That in pursuance of the foregoing and in consideration of the price. hereby agreed Party of the First Part hereby agree to sell 25% of the schedule property and the Party of the Second Part hereby agree to purchase 25% share of the Schedule Property subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶61

1) SALE PRICE:

¶62

a) The price payable by the Party of the Second Part to the Party of the First Part for 25% of the entire Schedule Property shall be Rs.7,81,25,000/-(Rupees Seven crores eighty one lakhs twenty five thousand only)

¶63

b) The Party of the Second Part has this day paid an advance of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ (Rupees One Crore only) to the Party of the First Part in the following manner;

¶64

Rs.1,00,00,000/ (Rupees One Crore only) by way of cheque bearing No. 258678, dated 21.12.2006 favoring M/s BIPASHA REALTORS PVT LTD drawn on Vijaya Bank Residency road, Bangalore which the Party of the First Part hereby acknowledges the receipt of the same. c) The Balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,81,25,000/- (Rupees Six crores eighty one lakhs twenty five thousand only) shall be paid by the

¶65

¶66

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata

¶67

Party of the Second Part at the time payment of balance sale consideration to the official liquidator, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2) WHEREAS Party of the First Part and Party of the Second Part shall jointly sell the Schedule Property to a prospective Purchaser and execute the necessary conveyance deed in favour of the prospective purchaser for the entire Schedule Property. V. TIME FOR COMPLETION:

¶68

The sale of the Schedule Property to a prospective Purchaser shall be decided mutually by party of the First Part and Party of Second Part. VI. Whereas Party of the First Part has decided to raise an advance from financial institution / Banks towards his share of contribution for purchase of the property and also create mortgage on the entire schedule property and Second Part has no objection on the stipulation that party of the second part will not be liable for the amount borrowed including interest and party of the first part indemnify the party of the second part with regard to its share in the schedule property and:

¶69

VII) EXPENSES:

¶70

The expenses relating to Stamp Duty and registration charges regard to the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the schedule shall be borne by the Party of the First Part and Party of the in the ratio of 75% and 25% respectively;

¶71

VIII) CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH:

¶72

In the event of Party of the First Part committing breach, the Party of the Second Part shall be entitled to enforce specific performance of this contract and also recover all costs, expenses and losses incurred by the Party of the Second Part, as a consequence of such breach from the Party of the First Part;

¶73

IX) ARBITRATION:

¶74

In the event of there being any dispute with regards to this Agreement or the interpretation of any of the clauses hereof, the same shall be referred to Arbitration. The arbitration shall be as per the provisions of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶75

X) This Sale Agreement is made in original in two copies and one original copy shall remain with party of the First Part and one original copy with Party of Second Part.

¶76

SCHEDULE

¶77

Land admeasuring 14 Ac. 20.4 Gs, RCC Buildings and Staff Quarters with Plinth Area of 52.512 Sft. And ACC Sheds with Plinth area of 1,59,700 Sqft. Situated at Sy. Nos. 13,21 and 411 situated in Patancheru, Medak District, Hyderabad:

¶78

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have executed this MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING in the presence of the Witnesses attesting hereunder. WITNESSES:

¶79

For Mahishmardini Griha Nirman Pvt Ltd Sd/Authorised Representative

¶80

¶81

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata SECOND PARTY”

¶82

22. It is also an admitted position that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement wherein an application for appointment of arbitrator was filed and Mr. Justice N. Sanjeeva Reddy, was appointed as Arbitrator vide order dated 30^th April, 2010 but till date arbitration proceedings are pending. It is also not in dispute that Respondents No. 3 and 4 had taken a loan on 21.12.2007 which was classified as N.P.A. for being irregular in payment of instalments. Respondents No. 3 and 4 informed the Bank about the Agreement for Sale to the Bank. Notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act were duly issued. Auction Sale Notice dated 17.9.2010 was issued but the sale could not be fructified as Writ Petition No. 23898 of 2010 was filed wherein Hon’ble High Court on 27.10.2010 permitted the Borrowers to make payment of Rs.5.00 crore by 31.12.2010 and balance amount in two equal monthly instalments by the end of February, 2011. It was further ordered that in case of default, Bank would be at liberty to proceed with the sale. Further, it was directed that as long as above referred terms are complied with, Bank shall not proceed with the auction scheduled on 27.10.2010. Order of the Hon’ble High Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP (C) No. 33800 of 2010 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court passed the following order:

¶83

“UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R

¶84

Taken on board. Issue notice.

¶85

¶86

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata Mr. Sridhar Reddi, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent.

¶87

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is

¶88

disposed of with the following directions: (i) The respondent shall pay to the petitioner Bank the first installment of 5 crore on or before 31^st December, 2010;

¶89

(ii) The respondent shall liquidate the entire debt towards the petitioner Bank on or before 28^th February, 2011; and

¶90

(iii) any The respondent undertakes not to any create third party rights in the subject property till the entire debt of the petitioner Bank is cleared by them.

¶91

The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.”

¶92

23. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed between Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 wherein Respondent No. 3 and 4 consented on 26.7.2011 for sale by private treaty by the Bank. Consequently, auction sale was conducted in favour of Respondent No. 5 and the Sale Certificate was also issued.

¶93

24. Now the only question to be looked into is about the locus standi of the Appellant as to whether he has any right to challenge the sale conducted by the Bank in favour of Respondent No. 5?

¶94

25. In Sanjay Sharma -vs- Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Others (2024 SCC OnLine SC 4589) it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that where the sale deed requires registration, ownership does not pass until the deed is registered even if possession is transferred and consideration is paid without such registration. Further reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Babasheb Dhondiba Kute -vs- Radhu Vithoba Barde in

¶95

¶96

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata SLP(C) No. 29462 of 2019 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

¶97

“The conveyance by way of sale would take place only at the time of registration of a sale deed in accordance with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 2008. Till then, there is no conveyance in the eyes of law.”

¶98

26. It was held that conveyance by way of sale would take place only at the time of registration of sale deed in accordance with Section 17 of the Registration Act. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court The Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Limited -vs- Central Bank of Indi & Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 352) Hon’ble Apex Court has placed reliance upon Suraj Lamps & Industries

¶99

Private Limited -vs- State of Haryana [(2012) 1 SCC

¶100

656] wherein it was held that:

¶101

"Scope of an agreement of sale

¶102

16. Section 54 of the TP Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas -vs- S.A. Kamtam [(1977) 3 SCC 247] observed: (SCC pp. 254-55, paras 32-33 & 37)

¶103

"32. A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. (See Ram Baran Prasad -vs- Ram Mohit Hazra [AIR 1967 SC 744: (1967) 1 SCR 293]) The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created by a contract for sale is recognised in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal obligation created by a contract of sale is described in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of property, but not amounting to an interest or easement therein.

¶104

33. In India, the word 'transfer' is defined with reference to the word 'convey'. The word 'conveys' in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership.

¶105

***

¶106

37.... that only on execution of conveyance, ownership passes from one party to another...."

¶107

*** ***

¶108

***

¶109

19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to

¶110

¶111

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter."

¶112

(Emphasis supplied)”

¶113

27. Suraj Lamps (supra) was further relied upon in the case of Shakeel Ahmed -vs- Syed Akhlaq Hussain (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1526) wherein it was held that :

¶114

“the person relying upon the customary documents cannot claim to be the owner of the immovable property and consequently not maintain any claims against a third-party. The relevant paras read as under:

¶115

"10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries (supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

¶116

11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document. Even the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same proposition. Reference may also be made to the following judgments of this Court:

¶117

(i). Ameer Minhaj -vs- Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar -(2018) 7 SCC 639 (ii). Balram Singh -vs- Kelo Devi Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022 (iii). Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited -vs- Amit Chand Mitra SLP(C) No. 15774 of 2022.

¶118

12. The embargo put on registration of documents would not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable property. Once this is the settled position, the respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession and mesne profits against the appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the property in question whether as an owner or a licensee.

¶119

13. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be

¶120

¶121

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata prospective is also misplaced. The requirement of compulsory registration and effect on non-registration emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act. The ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) only approves the provisions in the two enactments. Earlier judgments of this Court have taken the same view."

¶122

28. Appellant is placing reliance upon the Agreement for Sale for his claim which could not make him entitle for any right on the basis of unregistered Sale Deed, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cosmos (supra). Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the Appellant has no locus standi to put its claim or to challenge the sale conducted in favour of the Auction Purchaser.

¶123

29. As far as pleas raised by the Appellant are concerned regarding sale by private treaty or other issues are concerned, since Appellant himself has no locus standi to challenge the sale conducted in favour of Respondent No. 5, I am of the considered view that all the pleas taken by the Appellant are not liable to be accepted.

¶124

30. However, as far as sale of the schedule property by way of private treaty is concerned, it was permissible as per Rule 8 (5)(b) of the Rules which reads as under:

¶125

“8. Sale of immoveable secured assets

¶126

(5) Before effecting sale of the immovable property referred to in subrule (1) of rule 9, the authorised officer shall obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset by any of the following methods:-

¶127

(a) by obtaining quotations from the persons dealing with similar secured assets or otherwise interested in buying the such assets; or (b) by inviting tenders from the public;

¶128

(c) by holding public auction including through e-auction mode; or] (d) by private treaty:”

¶129

¶130

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata

¶131

31. As far as dispute with regard to procedural aspects are concerned, it is settled and set at rest that with the disposal of the SLP (C) No. 33800 of 2010 now Appellants cannot take any advantage of any action or omission by the Respondents. At this stage, it would be pertinent to observe that compliance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 23898 of 2010 vide order dated 27.10.2010 were also not made. Even the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 33800 of 2010 on 1.12.2010 was also not complied with.

¶132

32. As far as applicability of the Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, it is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the Appellant is challenging the action on the basis of an unregistered sale deed which has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law except for collateral purposes. It is also to be observed that no suit for specific performance is filed by the Appellants for specifically enforcing the unregistered agreement for sale. Accordingly, the case laws, relied upon by the Learned Counsel for Appellant in Videocon and Prateek (supra), are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶133

33. On the basis of the discussion made above, I am of the considered view that the Appellants have no locus standi to challenge the action initiated by the Bank. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶134

O R D E R

¶135

¶136

Appeal No. 18 of 2023-DRAT-Kolkata Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 2^nd July, 2019, passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad, in S.A. 20 of 2019 (Old S.A. No. 163 of 2012 of DRT-I, Hyderabad) (M/s. Mahishamardini Griha Nirman Private Limited -vs- Indian Overseas Bank & 4 Others), is affirmed.

¶137

No order as to costs.

¶138

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶139

File be consigned to Record room.

¶140

Order signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

¶141

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶142

Dated: 07^th July, 2025 ac

Mahishamardini Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahishamardini Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ganeriwal Gautam versus Bandla Ganesh Babu

Indrani Chatterjee versus State Bank of India

Anjali Udyog versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India versus Ms Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd. And Others

L Rajasekhar Reddy versus Icici Home Finance Company Ltd.

Bank of India versus Smt a Padma