Dismissed

Madhucon Infra Ltd. v. Ifci Ltd.

DRT24 Aug 2023RA/3/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by property claim petitioners challenging recovery officer order denying their title over auctioned mortgaged property. Court found appellants failed to establish title as survey numbers differed from mortgaged property; revenue records did not confer title.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; impugned order dated 07.02.2023 sustained.

Madhucon Infra Ltd. versus Ifci Ltd. — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGU :^T, 2C.23

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

RECOVERYAPPEAL No.S oT 2Q23

¶5

Ir.t Cp.No.4S or. 2C22

¶6

Ir.t

¶7

R.p.No.4SB or 20t7 Irrt OA.No.5,49 or. 20 I 6

¶8

Sri Pratap Ravinder, S/o. Mallesham, Aged 53 years, Occ: Business, R/ o. 3-4-5 8 / 4, Lingalrrrpafly, Kacheguda, Hyderabad - S00 022.

¶9

Akula Laxman Rao, S/o. Sattaiah, Aged 63 years, Occ: Business, H.No. 16- I l-213 / 24, East prashanth Nagar, Musarambagh, Hyderabad _ 500 036.

¶10

K. Sai Nanda Kishore, S/o. Subrarnanyarn, fS.a^{30 years, Occ: Business,} Appellants/

¶11

R/o. 16- 11-16 /M / 1 1, East prashan Nagar, Claim-Petitioners/ Musarambagh, Hyderabad. Third-Parties.

¶12

Versus

¶13

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank), New Nallakunta Bran ch, 2_2_lItg / I l6;, Shivam Road, Hyderabad. Respondent/ Rep. by its Authorized Officer. Applicant Bank. 2. Yellamma Temple, Kowkoor, Ma1kaj giri, Ranga Reddy - 500 010. ffi

¶14

J. Bathula Mahesh yadav, S/o. Babu v, .ru '^ Aged major, R/o.4-4-135, Bharath Yellamma Temple, Kowkoor, Ranga Reddy- S00 Ol0. 24rU62m

¶15

N. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, S/o.N. R/o.I-2-294, Geetha Nagar, Near Siddipet Road, Jangaon, Warangal _

¶16

¶17

Recovery Appeol No. 3/2023

¶18

5.	B.KannaReddy,S/o.BGaJReddy, H.No.1-7-1259/ E3, Advocates Colony, Hanamkonda,Warangal-506001.
6.	P.MallaReddy,S/o.p. LaxmaReddy, R/ o.l4-74/5, Rajapally, Huzurabad, Chelpur, Karimnagar-SOS122.
	G.SathishReddy,S/o.G. RamReddy, R/o.5-77/38,P.No.138,SuryaNagar Colony, OldAlwal,Hyderabad-500010.
8.	!..V9n\at^{Reddy,S/o.p.pratapReddy,} R/o.2-20-6/201,AdarshNagar, Opp.NSGrammerSchool, Uppal, RangareddyDistrict-S0OO39.	Respondents/ Auction Purchasers
9.	TheRecoveryOfficer, DebtsRecoveryTribunal-l, TriveniComplex,Abids,Hvderabad_1	Respondent
	CounselfortheAppellants CounselforRespondentNo.1 RespondentsNo.2to 9	SriT.RanadhirSingh. SmtP.Tarangini.

¶19

-:ORDERi

¶20

This appeal is Iiled by the Appelrants, who are the petitioners in cP'No 145/2022 in Rp.No.S33/2017 in oA.No.549/2016, cha,enging the order dt.o7 'o2.2o23, passed by the Ld. Recovery officer of this Tribunal in the said CP.No.145/2O22 fited by them. 2. The brief facts, which are leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:_

¶21

Before the Recovery offrcer the Appellants herein frled claim petition i.e., CP.No. 145/2022 in Rp.No.53 3 / 20 tZ in OA.No.549/20 16, contending that 'are^the absolute joint owners and possessors of agricultural property rm extent of Ac.8-20gts., situated at Konne Village, Wararrgal District, ,o! fu rl$ the sarne under Regd. Sale Deed bearing Doc.N /2079,^{dt.74.06.2olg,} executed. by Mr. Maltur Kar Rajendra t^{2 4 tlj82llt"""c} . Gattu Sridhar and Mr. p. Kishore and ever since their they are in enjoyment and possession of the said property. The fttb","*"--# of the Appellants-petitioners purchased the said property from w&tr; 'Uppulappa Sanjay Kumar, Mr. yanmsani Srinivas Reddy and Mr.

¶22

Recovery Ap^peol No. 3 / 202 i

¶23

Chigullapally Venkatesham under 3 separate Sale Deeds dt.O2.O7.2O1g. The said Mr. U. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. y. Srinivas Reddy ald Mr. Ch. Venkatesham in tum purchased the said property from Mr. Narra Sunil Kumar and Mr. Konda Santosh Anand under registered SaIe Deed dt.23.O4.201,a.

¶24

ii) The names of the Appellants are mutated in revenue records, they were issued pattadar pass book and they are availing the benefits of Raitu Bandu scheme from the Govemment of Telangana in respect of the subject property. The Appellarrts came to know that the Respondents No.2 & 3 herein are borrowers of I"t Respondent Bank and that the l"t Respondent Bank Iiled OA.No.549/2016 against them for recovery of dues and obtained Recovery Certificate and the Ld. Recovery Officer attached the subject property belonging to the Appellants and sold the same in auction on 1 1.08.202 I to Respondents No.4 to 8.

¶25

Before the Ld. Recovery Officer, in the said Cp.No.45/2O22, the 1sr Respondent Bank filed its Counter wit1l following contentions:-

¶26

i) The Respondents No.2 & 3 herein having availed the loan from the l"l Respondent Bank by creating mortgage over the OA schedule property by deposit of original title deeds, committed default in the repal,rnent of the loan amounts and hence the 1"t Respondent Bank filed OA.No.54g/2016 before this Tribunal and same was allowed on 22.02.2017 ald Recovery certificate was issued. Thereafter, Ld. Recovery officer initiated necessar5r steps for sale of the said OA schedule mortgaged property and conducted public auction on 1 1.08.2O21, wherein Respondents No.4 to g stood as successful bidders and on deposit of entire bid amount, order of of sale dt.O 1 . 1 1.202 1 was also issued in their favour.

¶27

,^{Ld. Recovery} Officer issued Warrant dt.O9.l2.2O2l by

¶28

Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the

¶29

4 AUE 7023 property and for handing over the same to the Auction purchasers that stage, the Appellants herein filed Cp.No.4S /2022 claiming the of the subject property under the alleged sale transactions,

¶30

are hit by Sec.52 of the Transfer of Property Act and also the said

¶31

Recovery Appeol No.j/2023

¶32

transactions are subsequent to the mortgaged created by Respondents No.2 & 3 herein in favour of the lst Respondent Bank.

¶33

Ld' Recovery officer after hearing both parties dismissed the a-foresaid CP.No.4S /2022 vide order dt.o7.o2.2023, holding that the claim petitioners never raised any objections when the schedule property was attached and sale proclamation was made arrd that the titte deed relied upon by the Claim Petitioners is subsequent to the mortgage created by Respondents No.2 & 3 in respect of the schedule property in favour of the l"t Respondent Bank a,,d that the Claim Petitioners have not challenged the sale of the schedule property conducted by the Recovery officer within 30 days from the date of sale and that the claim Petitioners have failed to establish their right and title in the schedule property.

¶34

challenging the impugned order dt.o7.02 .2023, tine claim petitioners in CP.No.4S /2022, filed the present appeal on the following grounds:_

¶35

The impugned order d1.07.02.2023, passed by the Ld. Recovery OIIicer is illegal, contrary to law and contrary to facts on record;

¶36

ii) Ld. Recovery Officer ought to have allowed the Claim petition, thereby holding that the Appellants have right over the schedule property;

¶37

iii) Ld. Recovery Officer ought not to have dismissed the Claim petition without considering the documents filed therein and ought to have looked into the documents while passing the impugned order;

¶38

(Eft ii Ld. Recovery OIIicer erroneously dismissed the Claim petition filed by the '&ffllfrf tS;

¶39

i'i'o? -'v) fi'.,:t -f

¶40

,i*,i ,d. Hecovery Officer ought not to have held that it has no jurisdiction to the right, title or claim of the third_parties;

¶41

\a^{2 4 AiJ82o2} '..3a_+ ui) -og*$ Oflicer ought not to have ignored the mistakes arrd N.e'Fu,,,r*ge+ttdt#(s';s,q ities in the attachment and sale proceedings; 6' Heard arguments of the Ld. counsel for the Appellants and the Ld. counser for the 1"t Respondent Bank.

¶42

Recovery Appeal No.j/2023

¶43

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶44

i) Whether the Appellants have established aly grounds for setting aside the impugned order dt.O7.02.2023 passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer in CP.N o.4S / 2022 in Rp.No.453 / 20 tZ in OA.No. 549/ 20 1 6?

¶45

ii) To what relief.2

¶46

Polftt No.ll)r

¶47

During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the Appellants reiterated the grounds taken by t}le Appellants as stated supra.

¶48

Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the lst Respondent Bank argued that the Applicants have nothing to do with the property mortgaged by Respondents No.2 & 3 in favour of the lsr Respondent Bank and that the Appellants have no right, title or interest in the property mortgaged to the l"t Respondent Barrk and the Appellaats have filed the claim Petition only to defeat the claim of the lst Respondent Bank.

¶49

10' The undisputed facts of the case are, the Respondents No.2 & 3 availed 10an facility from the l"t I bywayof depositJ::il::.::,:T:JJil:Iil-JT:il::::::.,::"fi:,: that in Schedule 'B'there are two Items and in Item No.2 the description of the property is mentioned as .,All that piece and parcel of Ac.2.23 gts., in Sy.No.87l3; Ac.t.27 H:T: situare.t ., :::T:::1' ,^-_^,,.,,, -1s I ,_m B atchann .SV wo apetaM," eg/B/3, d",, total w;;;; admeasuring ;;;'Hff ac.+.tO ",^{r cr.{r8ana} gts.,;

¶50

;e*%$#,YYI't":.,rHT:Jlr::T;^{jt,i::;,,,.T,::} "^{ucPusrleo tne}

¶51

,,,, .rJ' r+ orisind)\deed -- w rLrrith thrn e r "Ih"*.,^-^^^-;^:, dt.24. r2.2ot2^{'- '::1"::t} in respect of It em.,,.' No'2rv., , ^; of schedule "-^: 'B'propertv-^rrvyurLJ

¶52

,t srrfiespondent Balk on 2g-Os .2012.11 4 h,, -_.^^.-.r by executing the Memorandum of

¶53

' , ^ i lrn Dms,sif ^Iai,^ .,_ - . 2 4 ou6m::,"":t: ?;1"rj::uringthe,"* ;.;;;ff o,,"ffi ",1#

¶54

1.,,,. .".:j'ff: !'^?l ""o? clearrv indicates that the said do",.n",-,t -u" iy.fl_.l l1Ti"_*^{in favour of Respondent" *";;} ;;"" ., in Sy.No.87lB and to an extent of Ac.1-27sts.,

¶55

ffi;::j lt-^".1.11-1".,

¶56

aS.No.8s/B/3 i.e., total extent of Ac.4_10sts., ;;";";";;","1T.: Batchalnapeta Mandal, Waralgal District. As the Ret to re naw rha r^^pondents No.2 & 3 failed pay the loan availed by them, the I Respondent-;;;"';";i#::

¶57

¶58

Oecovery Appeol No.3/2023

¶59

file OA.No.549 /2016 and same was allowed by this Tribunal arld accordingly Recovery certificate was issued. Thereafter, Ld. Recovery officer has initiated steps for attachment and sale of the said mortgaged property and ultimately the subject property was auctioned on 11.0g.2O21 and Respondents No.4 to g herein became the successful bidders. when the Recovery officer appointed the Advocate commissioner and issued warrant for taking physicar possession of the subject property covered under the sale deed dt.24.l2.2'l2in favour of Respondents No.2 & 3, the Appenants herein fired cp.No.4' /2022 before the Ld. Recovery Officer claiming the said property as their property. When the Appe',ants' being the claim petitioners are claiming the said property as their property' they have to establish their right, title a,,d interest on the said property a,,d they have to also establish that the property claimed by them and the property sold by the Ld. Recovery officer is one and the same.

¶60

A perusal of the do that, on,o,,.ro,;::::'ili"^t :l"T';rilT: ffi::,J:T ;ff executed arr Agreement of Sale-cum-GpA (with possession) in favour of Vuppullappu Sanjaya Kumar, yamsani Srinivas and Chigulapally Venkatesham in respect of land to an extent ofAc. 1_27gts., in Sy.No.gg/B/4, an extent of Ac.O-33% gts., in sy.No.8 8/B/3 /2, an extent of extent of Ac.7-77/e gts., in sy.No.87lB/2, J"ffi";;r;:;-:Ht;i: ; Sy.No.88/B/3/1 and an extent of Ac.t_t1% gts'' in syNo'87/B/l, thus totaling to ari extent of Ac.g_20 gts., Konne Village, Batchannapet Mandal, warangar District Later, the said Agreement Holders have themserves executed Sale Deed in their favour on 23.O4.2O1g. Thereafter, the said three persons alienated the said property to three different persons those are p. Kishore, Ga tt rr sridh.- ^ n r ri_, , r ca u sridhar a d Maloturkar Rajendra prasad vide ;;.;" ;" ffil": cl ifqqzors. {9.rU. The^the sai rr p r.;-L^-^ ^ .. . Kishore, Gattu Sridha_r and Maloturkar Rajendra 6& t/d\ q: Sl$".: executed registered SaIe Deed d,t.t4.O6.2ltg rtrin rf avour o If {^&? l}1',n't'tq^{nerein and one Sri Shravaa Kumar} in respect of enrire rand of Ac.8' * Ko4pg, Village, Batchampet Marrdal, warangal I'"...r=ar.,rsrncr'District. . . .,,r^o;r" ; 2 4 AUB zon Ti, ",.. ,+i'' a carefi$ g$/f al of Sale Deed dr.24. t2.2or2in favour of Respondents No.2 & -Wffi,H,flfr::=.ffi "fl:"::T.ffi^j],"., the Appellants herein, the sun'ey Numbers of the property is entirely different

¶61

Recovery Appeol No.3/2023

¶62

from that of the Survey Numbers in the Sale Deed. dt.24.12.2012 deposited with the lst Respondent Bank. The Appellants have not frled any document to establish that there is any sub_division of Sy.Nos. a7 /B and 8g/B/3.As per the documents filed by the l"t Respondent Bank in the OA.No. 549 /2016, the property in Sy.Nos.g7lB and SS/B/3, was mortgaged by Respondents No.2 & 3 herein in favour of the 1"t Respondent Bank by executing ttre Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds So, when the Sale Deed Iiled by the Appellants herein does not show Sy.Nos.g7 /B and gg/B/3, they cannot claim that they have right, title and interest over the property sold by the Ld. Recovery Officer to Respondents No.4 to 8. It is settled law, revenue records do not confer title on arry person in respect of a particular property. So, merely by re$ng on the benefit of Raitu Bandhu scheme that is given to them by the Government of Telangana or their names are appearing in Revenue Records, they cannot claim right, title and interest in the property mortgaged by Respondents No.2 & 3 in favour of the l"r Respondent Bank.

¶63

13 rn the oA schedure 'B' under Item No.2 property description, survey numbers are mentioned as 87 /3 and 88/El/3. But, as per the title deed of Respondents No.2 & 3, the survey numbers arc g7 /B and gg/B/3. Mere wrong mention of survey number by the l"t Respondent Bank in oA schedule, is not a ground for setting aside the sale conducted by the Ld. Recovery officer. It is pertinent to note that the earliest document relied upon by the Appellants-claim petitioners is on Agreement of Sale_cum-GpA, executed by Sri Narra Sunil Kumar and Konda santosh Anand, on r4.rr.2orz.In the said AGpA, there is no mention as to how the said vendors i.e., sri Narra Sun, Kumar and Konda santosh Anand obtained their title and possession of the property covered by the said ']eiefibed un g?Ai.$1::;,[-ffi^{'[:T.T:,"J;""T"T11]:.1::,i.::i;J;:ff} Lurrr rru.z or Dcnedute^.u, to the oA, is of the year 2ol2 l,-::Tand 5i...o^dt t t ls! n /i trr L:.r'e^{sarcr u'{d}^imenr^was deposi r ed with the r., Res p onden rt Bank Rant on ^- oa ^E 28.o5.2or4.r^ r , ii 5yoy exe cuting.lcutin4pl\morandum of Deposit of Title Deeds. t; ?.u AyI m ;i , --; ,i;. ,r-r,:.1->-,1r note that, when attachment uo r the urc sc nh e od u fl e p fr ope rrft y \vw as : r E , .,j,- 1^,: '";g*/to \ \r 4,;. ,l.ir"t^.i ri;,{.i,",tf.ryYr}f'"^/t-:t,,-ti- -..-.^{_:., rorders of the Ld. Recoveryofficerand when pro} Pr^u^clamraln^auri^on was ;,-L-;'.'i: ''r-nade 'and sale of the disputed property was conducted in the pubric auction, "tt'- th" eppJrants herein never raised any objection even though they are having some other property in the same loca.lity, other than the disputed property.

¶64

Recovery Appeol No. 3/2023

¶65

so' considering all the circumstances, I hold that the Appellants have failed to establish their right, titre, interest and possession over the property in dispute and so they are not entifled to claim any relief in the claim petition. A perusal of the impugned order dt.o7.02.2023, indicates that Ld. Recovery officer has properly considered the material praced before her and I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunar. so, the impugned order dt.o7.02.2023 is sustainable. Accordingly, this point is answered against ttre Apperants.

¶66

Potnt No.ftt):-

¶67

In the result, the present Recovery Appeat is dismissed. No costs.

¶68

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶69

(Dictated to the priuate St in" z+i7ia""iir;:;;8;;'."ry, transcribed bg him, conected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thb

¶70

sd/(c. coPrcHANDl PRESIDING OFFICETi

¶71

TRUE &*et

Madhucon Infra Ltd. v. Ifci Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhucon Infra Ltd. v. Ifci Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Raksha Ginning and Pressing Factory

State Bank of India versus Syeda Husana

Bank of India versus M/S Plastoman Plastic Industries

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vinayaka Polymers

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kamalla Stalin

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Dream House Cine Techniq