Dismissed

Paras Mal v. Punjab National Bank

DRT25 Oct 2023SA/318/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Specific Application filed by third-party applicants claiming rights over a mortgaged property. The court held the application was non-maintainable as applicants failed to prove their share in the property and did not challenge impugned actions of the bank like other legal heirs. Sale in favor of the auction purchaser was confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Specific Application dismissed; Sale confirmed in favor of auction purchaser; Possession directed to be handed over within 15 days.

Paras Mal versus Punjab National Bank — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2023)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

Supp Item No.

Case No. SA/318/2023

PARASMAL VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

¶6

Date: 25.10.2023

¶7

Present:

¶8

Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Counsel for Applicant

¶9

Shri Vikas Jain, Counsel for the Respondent

¶10

Shri R K Salecha, Counsel for the Auction Purchaser

¶11

This SA was filed by SA applicant being third party, claiming his right over the subject mortgaged property in the capacity of legal hires of Mr. Panna Lal Marothi.

¶12

As per civil suit filed by SA applicant, late Mr. Panna Lal Marothi was having six children, including five sons and one daughter, namely Jassu Devi. Both the SA applicant are son of Late Smt.Jassu Devi.

¶13

As per Demand Notice dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure A-4) Mr. Prakash Chand Marothi, proprietor of M/S Laxmi Food Products, obtained credit facility from the respondent bank, committed default, account was declared as NPA on 31.12.2021, and so respondent bank initialed recovery proceedings.

¶14

Borrower Mr Prakash Chand is son of Mr. Bhanwar lal, who is son of Mr. Panna Lal Marothi and two sons of Mr. Prakash Chand are also guarantor.

¶15

Civil Suit No.25/2023 was filed by SA applicants under order 7 rule1 of Civil procedure code on 02.03.2023 against all the legal heirs of late Mr. Panna Lal As well as against the respondent bank also.

¶16

Notices were issued in favour of borrower also and it is a fact the borrower against whom action under the previous of SARFAESI Act of 2002 were initiated, failed to challenges those actions and it is only SA applicant, who objected the action being sons of one of legal heirs,

¶17

¶18

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶19

¶20

where as others remaining almost 16 other legal heirs, failed to challenges the actions initiated by the respondent bank.

¶21

Subject mortgaged property i.e. property consisting of Mohalla Pabu Chowk, New Lane, Bohare Chowk , Ganganagar, Bikaner was put to auction through auction notice dated 01.11.2022, auction was scheduled on 29.11.2022, was successful as the Auction Purchaser M/s Arihant Online Solution Pvt.ltd, quoted highest bid amount deposited entire amount but sale could not be registered on account of order of status quo dated 15.06.2023 passed by this Tribunal mainly on the ground that the respondent bank failed to file reply to the SA on the given date. Reply to the SA was filed on 23.06.2023.

¶22

Prayer for condonation of delay was decided by this Tribunal, vide order dated 11.07.2023, delay was allowed and as the said order remained unchallenged, so it has now attained finally.

¶23

Auction Purchaser, moved an IA No.1594/2023, on 01.08.2023 with a prayer to allow him to impaled as a necessary partly to the proceedings of the SA, prayer was allowed.

¶24

10.An IA No. 1895/2023 was moved by auction purchaser on 01.08.2023 with a prayer to vacate the order dated 11.07.2022 and allow him to get the sale of subject property, registered in their favor.

¶25

11.So, from the facts as discussed herein above, only issue which requires to be decided is the maintainability of this SA because SA applicants, being neither borrower nor granter of any kind of facility, do not have any right to challenge the actions initiated by the the respondent bank under the provision of SARFAESI Act of 2002.

¶26

12.In Para 5.2 to the SA, it is alleged that the respondent No.2 has no right to mortgage the property till partition of the property owned by Mr.Panna lal Ji between all the legal hires.

¶27

13.Ld. Counsel for the SA argued in the light of grounds taken in the SA and Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank objected each and every ground taken by SA applicant.

¶28

¶29

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶30

¶31

14.Ld. Counsel for auction purchaser also stressed upon the fact, that the SA applicant failed to establish their right over the subject mortgaged property so action initiated by the bank are as per law and so “Sale” conducted on 29.11.2022 is required to be confirmed.

¶32

Heard argument and perused the record.

¶33

16.Respondent bank while filing reply to the SA, took preliminary objection and as their objections are related to grass root level of the case, so are being decided first.

¶34

17.Respondent bank took objection of maintainability of this SA, and I find myself in agreement that the SA, applicants are one of the legal hires, so they cannot make a claim their right on whole of the property.

¶35

18.Ld. counsel for the applicant has filed an affidavit of Applicant no. 2 Sh. Babu Lal informing therein that Sh. Pannla Lal Marothi died on Asthmi Kartik Shukla Samwat 2013 at Bikaner i.e. 11.11.1956 so in the Release Deed, the fact in relation to death of Sh. Panna Lal Marothi is wrongly mentioned. Sh. Panna Lal Marothi was maternal grandfather, of both the SA applicant.

¶36

19.Ld. counsel for the applicant, Ld. counsel for the respondent bank and Auction Purchaser raised the issue of ownership of the SA applicant in the mortgaged property. Sole arguments of the SA applicant was that the Release Deed which was filed by the respondent bank is having wrong fact with regard to death of Sh. Panna Lal Marothi as it is mentioned as “ fofnr jgs fd Jh iUuk yky ekjksBh dk lu~ 1956 ls iwoZ fuoZlh;rh fu/ku gks x;k ” because the Sh. Panna Lal Marothi was expired on 11.11.1956.

¶37

20.Ld. counsel further submitted that in the light of Agreement, copy of which was filed by the respondent bank at Page no. 13 to 18, the documents was executed without the knowledge of SA applicants and therefore, the bank was not entitled to create mortgaged on the subject mortgaged property.

¶38

21.On the other hand Ld. counsel for the Auction Purchaser referred Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 consequent upon

¶39

¶40

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶41

¶42

amendment with effect from 09.09.2005 and submitted that Sh. Panna Lal Marothi did expired intestate i.e. without will way back in the year 1956, his assets did devolve upon his sons namely Deep Chand, trilok Chand, Kistoor Chand, Bhawarlal and Jaskaran and therefore, her purported daughter Smt. Jassu Devi who is stated to be mother of Mr. Paras Mal the SA applicant could not be considered to entitled for any share in the property of Late Sh. Panna Lal Marothi.

¶43

22.Ld. counsel for the respondent bank also adopted the arguments raised by Ld. counsel for the Auction Purchaser and after having heard arguments in detailed, I am of the view that the SA applicant, if at all for the sake of arguments, claims their right as a part in the subject mortgaged property, they could have taken appropriate steps on or after their attaining age as a major because the issue of death of Sh. Panna Lal Marothi is disputed and the SA applicant failed to file any documentary evidence on record along with affidavit to show that he expired on 11.11.1956.

¶44

23.In my considered opinion the documents which was filed by the bank as Released Deed which is a registered documents is required to be considered and so the facts as mentioned in the said Release Deed are required to be considered as genuine.

¶45

Considering the overall circumstances, the borrowers who are also having complete right over the subject mortgaged property, failed to challenge any of the action initiated by the respondent bank and it is only SA applicant who claims his right as part of the property but, in fact they failed to prove on the basis of any documentary evidence which can show that they were having part in the subject mortgaged property and therefore, ground taken on the SA applicant is not liable to be accepted, hence, the same stands rejected.

¶46

25.As informed by Ld. Counsel for this SA applicant civil suit , so filed by SA applicants (Annexure A- 3) stands disposed of as dismissed, so in

¶47

¶48

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶49

¶50

my considered opinion , the claim of both the SA applicants , came to an end, so this SA also become non-maintainable.

¶51

26.Accordingly the SA stands disposed of as dismissed. The Respondent

¶52

bank, is hereby directed to ensure that the sale in registered Within 15 days from the date of this order, in favour of auction purchasers and peaceful possession of the subject mortgaged property is also be handed over to auction purchaser as he has already suffered a lot. If needed, bank can take help of local police also.

¶53

With these observations, SA stands disposed of as dismissed and pending IA if any also disposed of as infractions.

¶54

Copy of the order be given free to the concerned parties.

¶55

File be placed before the Registrar for compliance after compliance file be consigned to record, as per rules.

¶56

(VIVEK SAXENA) Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶57

Paras Mal v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Mal v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Sharma versus Hdfc Bank

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Gurmukh Singh

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Pira Ram

Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Sukhwant Singh

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Gursewak Singh Jatsikh