Allowed

O. Pruthvik Rao v. State Bank of India

DRT21 Aug 2024MA/76/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A miscellaneous application filed under the RDR Act seeking the return of mortgaged documents. The tribunal held that since the bank's claim regarding the property was dismissed, it has no lien and must return the documents.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st Respondent/Applicant Bank to return the mortgage documents pertaining to schedule I property to the Petitioners/Defendants No.24&25 within two weeks from the date of order under prop

O. Pruthvik Rao versus State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2ISt DAY OF, AUGUST ,iOZq PRESENT: SRI. cUMMAOT eOprCXetrO HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

MA. NO. 76 0F 2023 IN

¶3

oA. NO. 240 0F 20L7

¶4

Between

¶5

Smt. Oora^praveena, H-No.1-1-252 and 253, 1"' Floor, Street No.3, Chikkadpaily, Hyderabad-500020. And another.

¶6

....Applicant/s

¶7

And

¶8

State Bank of India, SAM Branch, Hyderabdad. And others.

¶9

... Respondent/s

¶10

This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the petitioners/Defendants No.24&25 under Section 22(2)(al & (h) of RDR A;;,- iOSS "..f.irrg direction to the Applicant Bank for return of mortgaged do"r_..rt" pertains to Schedule ,I, property.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in thatshe is rtercnrra-r ^,^ ^:l-0T,. 1f.^{jle_anntication,the tstpetitioneraverred} ::::11',:"i::"i:.:il"::1,-?^;;)i;:;ffi^{.,;.,";.::;:'ffi} ::T[:: ili;, j,:1.,lyT l.:11:.^*:::i,.ai.a ""^{os;i.;; ," .} ;"":LI}j ilTf Premier Towers, .'T#:^{j:':;^T..::::":9} Vasarrinagar, :i"i-y-'i,',"^{i il#'1 j:;:i#;} i?:ff :f badContonment from Smt. B. Renuka Devi on10. L2.2OOS vi No. 1980/2005. Defendant No. 13 by forging the: srgn respect of the said prop( ffi-T"x&I Rao, created mortgage in i.e. Flat NO. 101, Ritesh n^{2lrircZU *l} * lt ,6^ r, *(fu,,",,""q.SU

¶12

.lgp;ii'i e

¶13

Premier Towers, Vasavinagar, Kakaguda, Sec.badcontonment which is adjacent to the petition schedule p.op..ty. Defendant No. 13 had no right to create mortgage in respect of the schedule ,I, property which is owned by ShyamSundar Rao' Defendant No.13 who is elder brother of said syam Sunder Rao and also head of the joint family and so he is having "r"toay oi ,t. originai sale deed pertaining to the petition schedule property. This Tribunal vide its order dt. 14. 10.2021 in o.A.240l l.dismissed the craim of the Appricant Bank confirming the forgery of the signaturesby defendant No. 13 and the claim of the Appricant Bank against Deiendants *o.z+azs and the application Schedule I property incruding the estate of the deceased sri o. shyam sunder Rao. Thereafter no appeal was preferred by the 1"t Respondent Bank herein and it has arso not returned the mortgage documents to the petitioners. Hence the petition.

¶14

The lst Respondent bank rrled their counter contending that the lst Respondent/Appricant Bank has sanctioned credit fac ities to Defendant No. 1 i.e. M/s Neeta Chemicals (India) p.Ltd. and the inrespect of the schedu" '"'.#*:1" fl1:,::t-arantors^{createdmortgage} petiti on er s herein n red ":r.^{t::i;;h, r'.T0" fn :n:"1?T::r.:jji":;l;l:} Petitioners also fired oS No.20l2018 0n the nte or xx II Addl. chief Judge, city Civii Court, Secunderabad and the same is O..rdr.r. The Respondent Bank can exercise general lien.on _the^{schedulepioperty of the petitioners} herein and so, the Respondent Bank ri s no t l iable r laDle to return the mortgage documents a" aorrna ,-.^{"'"^}

¶15

Heard both the Ld. Counsel and perused the material brought on record. Nou the point for consid.eration is whether the petitioners are entitled for retum of mortgage documents relating to Sched.ule i;i*."U in O.A.240/ lV

¶16

lri:H","::,::_:.,"1.: ,T"Is^{it crear that o.A.24o/ 17 is nred by State} Bank ;: ii,:':: ":li-l"o^ ::T-".: M / s Neeta ";.il; " ;. ;;.: #", ;';':::. "il: t s N o, z + ar; ;^"# ;;, li ;*,lT^..L il! impleaded ,T:[:::T :",,:: as LRs ^ of fl: late Sri ?._Ti. O. Ln S der Rao being his wife and son. The contention of the Applicant O.A.is that late Shyam Sunder Rao created mortgage in property. The contention of the Petitioners herein in O.A. is late der Rao never stood as guarantor to the credit ities ar Chemicals p.Ltd.from the 2 1 llUC ?tr! 't

¶17

Applicant Bank and he never created mortgage in respect of I schedule property and that Defendant No. 13 forged the signature" of O.Sy"- Sr.rd., Rao and handed over the title deeds of trhe schedule I propert5z to the Applicant Bank' After elaborate trial, o.A.24oZ rz "g"i""i oefendants No.24&25 and the claim of the Applicant Bank in respect or ir. r ""n.aule property incruding the estate of deceased Syam Sunder Rao was dismissed.

¶18

In Para 22 of order dt. 14.10.2021 passed in O.A.24O/lZ, it is held that: '',e " under such circumstances, I hord that si o.shgam sunder Rao neuer exeanted ang loan documents, includ.ing personal guarontee for the initial loanof Rs.65.5O crores as u-'e'as the enhanced. rimit of Rs.1g7.g0 crores and. further sri o.shgam Sunder Rao has also not created anA mortgage in respect of his propertg i.e. apprication schedure 'I' propertg in fauour of the Applicant Bank. TLnt being the case' defendants No'24&25 are in no way riabre to the craim of the Appricant Bank in the capacitg of tegar heirs of the d.eceased. si o.shgam sunder Rao and the Appricant Bank is ar'so not entitred to proceed against the apprication ,1, schedule propertg and the estate of the deceased. O Shgam Sunder Rao." Further, in para No.25(ii) of the said order, it is held as follows: "the craim of the Applicant Bank against Defendants 0.24&25 and the application schedule,l, property, including the estate of the d.eceased. Si O. Shyam Sunder Rao, is herebg dismlssed.

¶19

So' this Tribunal having accepted the contentions of the petitioners herein, dismissed the claim of the Applicant Bank ,rr the petitioners herein i.e. Defendants No'24&25 and even the claim or irr. appri".nt Bank in respect of I schedule property was also dismissed. rr is .rot the case of the r"t Respondent/Applicant Bank that they preferrel any appeal before Hon,ble Debts Recovery Appellate-Iilr"1 "il"ir.re-g-,he^{dismissalof the o.A.} against Defendanrs No.24&25. So, the oiJ.? a,. ro., O.2o21 passed in 3"ffi:1ilJr,f"TlT:^::::iT:,lll^n".1, !""."^{the craim or the Applicant} Bank again st the pe ritioners/ Defendants No. z+ais-'arla"J:T,;: ffi ,I_;il: 'I' schedule property was the documents relating ffi T ISI ::.*..;;-;;;?;"." contention ;iii.'-"."',%tffiF^ffiS:rtv^{to the,Petitionersherein.} The ri.., .g"t.,"ti;;;,Ki;":::trjtca'ttRk^{that thev are having general} not liable to return the title i.j 2lrrlnmf : hnx -"":.S @rux,tW

¶20

deeds in respect of the, schedule property is not tenable. When Late Syam sunder Rao never stood as gr-...rto. to tne creait facilities availed by the 1"t defendant from the Respondent/Applicant Bank, as held by this Tribuna.l vide linal order dt.t4.l}.2}2t in O.A'.;4O/,Z ,rJ *1.., the said order became final, the question of exercising general fle., Oy tfre Applicant Bank in respect :lJ..""nro"" property which was ow.r.a uy iate syam Sunder Rao does not

¶21

Considering all the above facts and circumstances, I hold that the l^{stRespondent/applicant} Bank is liable to return the mortgage documents relating to schedule 'I'property to the petitioners herein as the Applicant Bank has no right over the said property since the claim of the Applicant Bank against the petitioners herein ana atso ctaim against the ,I, schedule property inctuding the estate of the deceased s.i o-;;;; Sunder Rao.,wass dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dt.t4.1O.2O2t in Oe.i+O1ZO1Z.

¶22

In the result 'MA76 / 2023. is anowed directing the r st Respondent/Applicant Bank to return the mortgage documents pJ.,"l.ri.rg to schedule ,I, property to the Petitioners/Defendants No.24&2s within two weeks from the date of this order under proper acknowledgement.

¶23

sd/-

¶24

Presiding Officer

¶25

ae*
ij zlAUotut :
,t'n ".}
;rtt#

¶26

'ff'(;:'- Z--)ul "4/.v )"
i(,)
,#f';ff'';ffii'(

O. Pruthvik Rao v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O. Pruthvik Rao v. State Bank of India

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

Suman Kumar Kotra versus Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sri Makkena John Jabraj

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Harihara Pack Private Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sri Kunarapu Raju

State Bank of India versus M/S.Gnr Products India

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Banoth Sarojini