Dismissed

Velmurugan v. Union Bank of India

DRT28 Jul 2025SA/207/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging an e-auction sale order. The court held that the applicant's right of redemption was extinguished after the publication of the auction notice, though the deposited amount was returned.

What did the court decide?

The SA is dismissed. The applicant is directed to be refunded the sum of Rs. 44.00 lakhs and Rs. 6.00 lakhs deposited with the Tribunal.

Velmurugan versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 28^th day of July, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SA No. 207 of 2023

¶9

Mr. G. Velmurugan S/o Gothandapani@Munusamy (PAN No.AACPV1438M DOB: 15.10.1972) 22, Thiruvallur Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Nagar Pondicherry – 605 009.…. Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India Pondichery Branch IFSC Code:UBIN0537951 No.147, Jawaharlal Street, Pondicherry – 605 001.

¶12

Mrs. Lakshmi 20B, II Cross Road, Vaikkal Street, Shanmugapuram, Pondicherry 605 009. …Defendants

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. M. Karthick Counsel for Respondent : M/s. S. Parthasarathy

¶15

ORDER ON SA 207/2023

¶16

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section

¶17

[1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging

¶18

the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the e-auction sale held on 10.03.2023 pursuant to the Sale notice dated 17.02.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale notice is Rs.1,19,98,019.14/-

¶23

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶24

3.1 Applicant is the guarantor to the loan availed by Mrs. S. Hemamalini, proprietrix of M/s. Tausiq Agencies who had availed Cash Credit of Rs.95.00 lakhs and Rs.9.50 lakhs under GECL from the respondent bank. The applicant is the owner of the Item No.3 of property as mentioned in the Sale notice. Applicant denies that the security interest was created over the property in favor of the respondent bank.

¶25

3.2 It is contended that the applicant stood as guarantor to the loan transaction to help the principal borrower and the applicant didn’t get single paisa benefit from the loan. The borrower was regularly paying the loan installments, due to depression, demonetization and COVID-19 pandemic, borrower faced huge loss and the respondent bank had not given sufficient opportunities to repay or regularize the loan account. The applicant was shocked to receive the Sale notice dated 17.02.2023 fixing the E-auction on 10.03.2023 which is in violation of SARFAESI Rules, as there is no service of the Demand Notice and Possession notice on the borrower nor the guarantor.

¶26

3.3 The applicant had insisted the principal borrowers to mobilize the funds and settle the dues with the bank. Applicant had approached the respondent bank for an OTS settlement and the applicant was shocked to

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

know that the applicant’s property was sold in the e-auction sale held on 10.03.2023 which is much below the market price.

¶31

3.4 Further the property was sold in favor of the single bidder which was pre-arranged by the manager of the respondent bank and sold at a throw away price without giving opportunity to repay the amount. Though the applicant had approached the bank for OTS of Rs.1.02 crores, the bank have refused to receive the applicant’s offer and didn’t issued any approval letter, where in the applicant is ready to pay a sum of Rs.1.02 crores as OTS against the outstanding amount due of Rs.1,19,98,019.14 as on 31.01.2023.

¶32

3.5 The bank has classified the account as NPA which is contrary to RBI guidelines and claims to have issued the Demand Notice dated 02.07.2021 demanding the applicant to repay the dues within 60 days, further claims to be issued Possession Notice which is not served on the applicant and borrower nor affixed on the property nor published in two Newspapers as per Rule 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, within 7 days from taking physical possession.

¶33

3.6 The respondent bank didn’t properly adjusted the amounts paid by the borrowers and without providing statement of accounts had charged penal interest. The bank has sold the property for a lowest price to the person whom the manager of respondent bank had a secret dealing and accepted the 25% of the bid amount after two working days after conclusion of the sale, but the 25% of the bid amount should be paid next

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

working day from the date of auction. There is no proper 15 days notices given to the borrowers and the sale notice does not confirmed as per Appendix IV-A of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules.

¶38

3.7 The sale is defective as it does not state whether the sale is “As Is Where Is” “As Is What Is” and “Whatever There Is”. The Sale notice is not uploaded in website of the bank. The property is not registered, as there is no registration of security interest in the Central Registry.

¶39

3.8 In the grounds it is contended that the bank has not followed procedures as contemplated under the Acts and the Rules. Auction Purchaser didn’t pay 25% of the bid amount belatedly after the statutory period and have not complied with Rule (8). On these grounds applicant prays to set aside the Sale held on 10.03.2023 pursuant to the Sale notice dated 17.02.2023

¶40

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶41

4.1 The respondent bank has filed a detailed counter inter alia contending that the present appeal is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limine. The respondent had sanctioned the following loan facilities:

¶42

a) Cash credit (A/c No.379505040075009) for a sum of Rs.95.00 lakhs and Total outstanding amount of Rs.35,13,885.00/-

¶43

b) Guaranteed Emergency Credit line for a sum of Rs.9.50 lakhs and Total outstanding amount of Rs.9,98,312.00/-

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

4.2 The borrower and the guarantor had executed all the documents and personal guarantee, agreeing to repay the loan facilities by collateral securities which is extended as mortgage. The applicant’s property (Item No.3) was mortgaged by way of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 05.03.2013 registered as Doc.No.1057 of 2013 and another dated 16.11.2020 registered as Doc.No.22974 of 2020 on the office of SRO, Oulgarpet.

¶48

4.3 The borrower was irregular in making repayments and the loan accounts were classified as NPA on 30.04.2021 and issued Demand Notice dated 02.07.2021 to guarantor and borrower. The loan accounts became regular and the demand notice was not persuaded by the respondent. However, the borrower once again defaulted in repayment and the loan accounts were classified as NPA and issued 2^nd Demand Notice dated 30.04.2022 calling upon the borrower and guarantor to pay the outstanding from 02.07.2021 with monthly rest.

¶49

4.4 The Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 30.04.2022 was sent through registered post which is duly acknowledged by borrower and guarantor on 09.05.2022 and 12.05.2022. The applicant were asked to discharge the liabilities in full within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of Demand notice, failing which bank would take necessary steps as per law for enforcement Act. Subsequently the bank has issued Possession Notice dated 13.09.2022 under Section 13(4) which is sent through registered post and returned unserved in respect of borrower and

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

guarantor. The Possession notice was affixed on the property and published in Tamil and English Newspapers.

¶54

4.5 Further the respondent bank has issued 1^st sale notice dated 16.11.2022 fixing the sale on 21.12.2022 which is; sent to borrower and guarantor through registeredpost and returned with an endorsement of “Unclaimed” and “No such Person”, affixed on the conspicuous part of the property, published in two newspapers, obtained the valuation report from the approved valuer, resultantly the sale didn’t take place.

¶55

4.6 Subsequently bank has issued 2^nd sale notice dated 06.01.2023 fixing the sale on 25.01.2023 which is; sent to borrower and guarantor through registered post and returned with an endorsement of “Door Locked” and “No such person”, affixed on the conspicuous part of the property, published in two newspapers, obtained the valuation report from the approved valuer, resultantly the sale didn’t take place.

¶56

4.7 The respondent bank has issued impugned 3^rd sale notice dated 17.02.2023 fixing the sale on 10.03.2023 which is sent to borrower and guarantor and returned with an endorsement as “Door Locked” and “No Such Person”. The sale notice was affixed on conspicuous part of the propertyand published in two Newspapers, one in “The New Indian Express” (English) and another in “Dinamani” (Tamil) both dated on 21.02.2023. The respondent bank has obtained valuation report from an approved valuer and fixed the reserve price for the sale of secured asset.

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

4.8 Respondent bank has issued 15 days clear notice on 18.02.2023 fixing up the sale on 10.03.2023 which is served and duly acknowledged by borrower and guarantor on 13.02.2021. Applicant has approached the respondent bank to settle the account by way of OTS after the sale is held on 10.03.2023 for a sum of Rs.46,21,000/- by Mrs. M. Latchoumy. On 16.03.2023 applicant had made a representation to respondent bank, that the applicant would settle the loan, further the sale certificate is registered on 09.04.202. However, the sale held is in loss and the applicant has to pay R.45,12,197/-, subsequently the respondent bank has filed OA No.12267 of 2023 before this Tribunal which is under scrutiny for verification of originals.

¶61

4.9 The appellant has filed an appeal before this Tribunal for urgent hearing and for stay, which is held as Tribunal permitted the applicant to deposit Rs.44.00 lakhs and directed respondent bank to maintain status quo from the date to time of compliance and to deposit a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs on or before 20.04.2023. Hence the conditional order passed by this Tribunal is compiled by the applicant.

¶62

4.10 As the applicant has challenged the sale held on 10.03.2023 in pursuant to the sale notice dated 17.02.2023 is filed by the applicant only to frustrate the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by respondent bank. Hence the respondent bank prays for dismissal of the present SA.

¶63

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the case.

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

5.1 Applicant admittedly is the guarantor who stood as guarantor to the loan availed by M/s Taushiq Agencies represented by its proprietrix, Mrs. Hemamalini. It is seen that the applicant has filed the present SA challenging the sale held on 10.03.2023 pursuant to the sale notice dated 17.02.2023. In fact there is no dispute with regard to the issuance of the Sale notice dated 17.02.2023 and admittedly the applicant challenged the impugning the sale held on 10.03.2023 even though the applicant was in receipt of Sale Notice dated 17.02.2023.

¶68

5.2 The 2^nd respondent is the successful bidder who had purchased the property and confirmation of sale for e-auction is issued on 13.03.2023 and Sale certificate is issued on 21.03.2023. It is seen from the records that the impugned sale notice dated 17.02.2023 is the 3^rd sale notice issued by the respondent bank for the recovery of the amount due from the loan account of the borrower M/s Taushiq Agencies represented by its proprietrix, Mrs. Hemamalini.

¶69

5.3 Though the applicant has challenged the sale held on 10.03.2023 has also raised contentions with regard to Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 30.04.2022 and Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 08.09.2022. The main contention raised is that there are two Demand Notices issued and there is no proper service of Demand Notice and Possession Notice. It is seen from the records that the bank have issued first Demand notice dated 02.07.2021 and as the borrower and guarantor had regularized the loan account, the Demand notice was not persuaded by the respondent.

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

5.4 Due to default after regularizing the account, the bank has classified the account as NPA for the second time and have issued the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 30.04.2022 which is produced at Page No.13 in the bank typed set, where in it is seen that the respondent has clearly described the nature of the loan availed by applicant, guarantee created by the applicant, mortgage of the property, default in the repayments, details of the mortgage property, primary securities.

¶74

5.5 It is also seen that the respondent bank have mentioned about the right of redemption under Section 13(8) of the Act, to the borrower and guarantor. The Demand notice is also sent through RPAD which is evident from the postal acknowledgement cards produced by the bank at Page No.17,18,19 of the typed set produced by the respondent.

¶75

5.6 Asthe applicant and borrowers didn’t liquidate the entire outstanding amount within 60 days as required under Section 13(2) and after the expiry of 60 days, respondent bank have issued Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 08.09.2022. It is a matter on record that the Possession notice is also sent through RPAD, in which Postal receipts and returned covers and acknowledgement cards establishes the due service of the Section 13(4) Possession notice.

¶76

5.7 The contention of the applicant that the Possession notice is not affixed and published in two Newspapers is countered by the respondent bank by producing the photograph of affixture of possession notice at Page No.27 and 28 of their typed set. The paper publication of Possession

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

notice is published in English and Tamil Newspaper on 14.09.2022 under Rule 8(2) and the same is produced at Page No.29 and 30 of the typed set produced by the bank. Thus the respondent bank have not only countered the contention as raised by the applicant with regard to the Demand Notice and Possession notice but also established the due compliance of the procedures required under the issuance of the statutory notices.

¶81

5.8 It is seen from the record produced by the respondent that they have issued 1^st sale notice dated 16.11.2022 fixing the sale on 21.12.2022 and 2^nd sale notice dated 06.01.2023 fixing the sale on 25.01.2023, the said notices were; sent to borrower and guarantor, affixed on the property, published in two papers as required under Rule 8(6) which is evident from the documents produced at Page No.31 to 73 of typed set produced by the respondent bank.

¶82

5.9 Admittedly the first two sale didn’t take place and the bank has produced the 3^rd sale notice dated 17.02.2023 fixing the sale on 10.03.2023 which is also sent to borrower and guarantor through RPAD and postal receipt, returned covers and acknowledgement cards produced at Page No.85 to 86. In fact there is no dispute with regard to the non service of the sale notice, it is seen that the bank has published the Sale notice in two Newspapers, one in “The New Indian Express” (English) and another in “Dinamani” (Tamil) both dated on 21.02.2023 and also affixed on the property as per the documents produced at Page No.100 and 101.

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

5.10 The respondent have put the property to auction after obtaining the valuation report from approved valuer and the valuation report is produced at Page No. 104 of typed set, which clearly reflects that the valuator has considered all the particulars required in ascertaining the value of the property and have considered the realizable value and current market value of the property. After considering all the requirements/parameters, valuator has fixed the realizable value for Rs.43,96,000/- and the Distress sale value of the property at Rs.35,07,000/-.

¶87

5.11 It is seen from the Sale notice that the reserve price is fixed for Item No.3 atRs.43,96,000/- as per the valuation report produced by the bank. The sale is successfully held and admittedly the property was sold above the reserve price for a sum of Rs.46,21,000/-, thus the applicant’s contention that the property is undervalued cannot sustain nor applicant has not produced the valuation report to counter the valuation of the respondent bank. Hence the contention that the property is sold at throw away price or under-valued cannot sustain, as the respondent bank have produced the valuation report which clearly describes that the valuator has considered the market value and primary securities of the secured asset.

¶88

5.12 The respondent bank has successfully conducted the e-auction on 10.03.2023 and it is seen that the successful bidder Mrs. M. Latchoumy is the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.46,21,000/- and also deposited earnest money deposit of Rs.4,39,600/- and a sum of Rs.7,15,650/- as 25% of

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

the bid amount required as per the terms of the Auction proceedings. Further it is intimated to deposit the balance sale consideration amount within a period of 15 days, after the confirmation of the sale, which is produced at page No.117 of typed set.

¶93

5.13 The applicant has raised a contention that the 25% of bid amount

¶94

is not paid on next working day cannot sustain. It is seen from the records that the sale was held on 10.03.2023 and the sale confirmation letter was issued on Monday 13.03.2023 after the weekend of Saturday and Sunday. After issuance of Sale confirmation letter dated 13.03.2023 within 7 days respondent bank has issued Sale certificate dated 20.03.2023. Though the contention of the applicant that Auction purchaser has not made the 25% of the bid amount within next working day cannot sustain as the auction was held on Friday 10.03.2023 and Sale confirmation letter was sent on 13.03.2023.

¶95

5.14 It is seen that the impugned sale notice dated 17.02.2023 fixing the sale on 10.03.2023 was sent to M/s Tausiq Agencies and returned unclaimed, which is produced at Page No.86 of typed set. The Sale notice is also affixed on the conspicuous part of the property and published in two Newspapers, one in “The New Indian Express” (English) and another in “Dinamani” (Tamil) both dated on 21.02.2023 as required under the Acts and Rules. Further the bank have obtained the valuation report and put the property for auction which is required under the procedures.

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

5.15 In fact applicant has failed to make out a case for intervention of the sale held and it is an admitted fact that the impugned sale notice is the 3^rd sale notice and though the applicant being the guarantor had not approached the bank for an OTS settlement nor have produced any document that he has initiated to settle the liability under OTS.

¶100

5.16 The borrower and the guarantor were aware of all the measures taken by the respondent bank and in fact have refused to take the claim of the sale notice which the notices were returned unclaimed and it is seen that the sale notice is published in two Newspapers, one in “The New Indian Express” (English) and another in “Dinamani” (Tamil) both dated on 21.02.2023 and also affixed on the conspicuous part of the property. The applicant being a guarantor is a mute spectator to the auction sale held and silently observed the auction to take place.

¶101

5.17 It is seen that the auction was successfully held on 10.03.2023 and sale confirmation letter was issued on 13.03.2023 and Sale certificate is issued on 20.03.2023. The applicant has filed the present SA on 23.03.2023 and vide proceedings dated 11.04.2023, Tribunal had permitted the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.44.00 lakhs to the borrower’s loan account and also directed to make a payment of Rs.6.00 lakhs on or before 20.04.2023, the Tribunal had directed the respondent bank to maintain the status quo as on the date and time of compliance. It is seen that the applicant was aware that the property is sold for Rs.44.00 lakhs in auction dated 10.03.2023. Further to show bonafides, as per the direction of Tribunal, applicant has filed a memo dated 23.03.2023 that

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

the applicant is ready to make a payment of Rs.44.00 lakhs to redeem the property.

¶106

5.18 Though the applicant has filed memo of compliance dated 10.05.2023 stating that the applicant has complied with conditional order passed by this Tribunal and made an payment of Rs.44.00 lakhs to the 1^st respondent and also paid another sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs to show their bonafide which is only to be returned. Counsel for applicant also submitted that the entire payment is made and wish to negotiate with the respondent bank, vide proceedings dated 16.08.2023 and the bank counsel had categorically submitted that the sale is already held on the scheduled date and sale certificate is also issued.

¶107

5.19 It is seen that the 2^nd respondent has filed an IA No.269/2025, a petition for seeking refund of the sale consideration. It is also seen that the Auction purchaser Mrs. M. Latchoumy invoked writ jurisdiction and filed an W.P.No.24303 of 2023 with a prayer seeking for refund of the sale consideration amount of Rs.46,21,000/- as the Debts Recovery Tribunal had granted status-quo and the guarantor also deposited Rs.50.00 lakhs. The auction purchaser has moved the bank for refund of the amount by filing a representation. The Writ Petition came to be disposed of directing the Auction purchaser to appear in the pending securitization application and put forth the stand.

¶108

5.20 Subsequently the Auction purchaser has filed an IA No.269 of 2025

¶109

seeking for refund of auction bid amount of Rs.46,21,000/- along with

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

interest rate at 7.5% from the date of payment till the date of receipt of the repayment. However the applicant has not taken any necessary steps and lost his right of right of redemption under Section 13(8) of the Act, even after the receipt of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice and Section 13(4) Possession Notice and issuance of sale notices. Further the applicant has issued a DD for a sum of Rs.44.00 lakhs after the Sale certificate is issued which the Tribunal had missed.Now the prayer of the auction purchaser is seeking for a refund of amount deposited with the respondent bank

¶114

5.21 The applicant having failed to redeem the property under Section 13(8) has waived his right of redemption and now cannot claim the right of redemption. As the applicant being the guarantor to the loan facilities availed and in respect of sale held on 10.03.2023 expressed his willingness to settle the entire sale consideration, after the sale was held on 10.03.2023 and Sale certificate is also issued on 20.03.2023 and guarantor had given DD dated 22.03.2023 for a sum of Rs.44,00,000/which is also received by the respondent bank and it is evident from the RTGS produced by the applicant in Memo of Compliance dated 10.05.2023.

¶115

5.22 The Tribunal places reliance on the judgment of t he Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled “Celir LLP versus Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd.” considered the right of redemption under S.13[8] after the amendment has held that borrower's right of redemption of mortgage under the SARFAESI Act will get extinguished once the bank

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

publishes an auction notice for the sale of the secured asset and further held that t he failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues before the publication of the auction notice as per Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act constituted an "extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage.

¶120

5.23 The applicant has voluntarily waived his right of redemption and now cannot claim the right of redemption of the property As the DD dated 22.03.2023 was accepted by the respondent bank, the respondent bank is hereby directed to return the entire amount of Rs.44.00 lakhs which was paid by the applicant here in vide DD dated 22.03.2023 and also an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs return the same to the applicant here in. As the applicant was fully aware of all the measures initiated by the respondent bank and lost his right of redemption under Section 13(8), applicant is not entitled for any interest thereon. Applicant is aware of Sale held on 10.03.2023 and Sale certificate issued on 20.03.2023 and the applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands.

¶121

Resultantly the present SA stands dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶122

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶123

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 28^th day of July, 2025)

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

ANNEXURES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶129

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	SARFAESI Application 23.03.2023	A-1
2.	Sale Notice 17.02.2023	A-2
3.	Letter regarding OTS	A-3
4.	Vakalath 23.03.2023	A-4
5.	Fact Sheet 23.03.2023	A-5

¶130

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶131

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Sanction Advice for Rs.95 lakhs towards Cash credit facility 10.09.2014	R-1
2.	Section 13(2) Demand Notice 30.04.2022	R-2
3.	Postal receipts 02.05.2022	R-3
4.	Acknowledgement of the borrowers 09.05.2022	R-4
5.	Possession notice under Rule 8(1) 08.09.2022	R-5
6.	Postal receipts 13.09.2022	R-6
7.	Returned covers 16.09.2022	R-7
8.	Affixing Possession Notice – photographs Rule 8 (1)	R-8
9.	Paper publication in English 14.09.2022	R-9
10.	Paper publication in Tamil 14.09.2022	R-10
11.	1^stsale notice for sale of schedule property 16.11.2022	R-11
12.	Postal receipts 16.11.2022	R-12
13.	Returned covers	R-13
14.	Paper publication in English 16.11.2022	R-14
15.	Paper publication in Tamil 16.11.2022	R-15
16.	Affixing sale notice 16.11.2022	R-16
17.	2^ndsale notice for sale of schedule property 06.01.2023	R-17
18.	Postal receipts 07.01.2023	R-18
19.	Acknowledgement of the borrowers	R-19
20.	Paper publication in English 08.01.2023	R-20
21.	Paper publication in Tamil 08.01.2023	R-21
22.	Affixing Sale notice–photographs	R-22
23.	3^rdSale Notice for sale of immovable properties	R-23

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

	under Rule 8(6) and 9(1) 17.02.2023
24.	Postal Receipts 18.02.2023	R-24
25.	Returned covers	R-25
26.	Paper publication in English under Rule 8(6) 21.02.2023	R-26
27.	Paper publication in Tamil under Rule 8(6) 21.02.2023	R-27
28.	Affixing Sale notice–photographs Rule 8(7)	R-28
29.	Valuation report (2220 sq.ft) 09.09.2022	R-29
30.	Confirmation of Sale for e-auction dated 10.03.2023	R-30
31.	Sale Certificate in favour of Latchoumy 21.03.2023	R-31
32.	Settlement Deed in Doc.No.245 of 1997 stands in the name of G.Velumurugan 30.01.1997	R-32
33.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds in Doc.No.1057 of 2013 05.03.2013	R-33
34.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds in Doc.No.22974 of 2020 16.11.2020	R-34
35.	Statement of Account for Loan A/c No.379505040075009 with certificate under Banker’s book evidence Act 03.06.20203	R-35
36.	Statement of Account for Loan A/c No.379506990000051 with certificate under Banker’s book evidence Act 03.06.20203	R-36

¶136

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶137

Item No.1

¶138

Puducherry Registration District, Tirukanur Sub Registration District, Mannadipet Commune Panchayat No.14, Thethampakkam Revenue Village at Kumarapalayam Village in Re-Survey No.52/18, Cadastre No.223 pt. Patta No.67, the piece and parcel of land having and extent of 03 Acres 80 Centiares or 07 Kuzhies 09 Veesams or 4356 sq.ft and the brick built terraced house existing thereon together with electricity and water service connections.

¶139

Boundaries

¶140

To the East of the Manai belonging to Duraisamy Reddiyar

SA No.207/2023

28.07.2025

To the West of the Manai belonging to Radhakrishnan Reddiar

¶145

To the South of the Road

¶146

To North of the Manai comprised in R.S.No.52/21

¶147

Item No.2

¶148

Puducherry Registration District, Tirukanur Sub Registration district, Mannadipet Commune Panchayat No.14, Thethampakkam Revenue Village at Kumarapalayam Village in Re-Survey No.52/21, Cadastre No.223 pt. Patta No.3N, the vacant land having an extent of 18 Acres 65 Centiares, out of this an extent of 8 Acres 07 Centiares or 15 Kuzhies or 8640 sq.ft.

¶149

Boundaries

¶150

To the South of the Road

¶151

To North of the land of Duraisamy Reddiar

¶152

To the East of the land Janakirama Reddiar

¶153

To the West of the lands of Konda Reddiar and Devanatha Reddiar

¶154

Item No.3

¶155

Puducherry Registration District, Oulgarpet Sub Registration District, Oulgarpet Municipality No.35, Oulgarpet Revenue Village, The wet land having an extent of 04 Kuzhies 2 ½ Acres 22 Centiares or 2394 sq.ft (Plot Nos.18 and 19) comprised in Re-Survey No.195/2, Cadastre No.1009 pt. Patta No.302.

¶156

Boundaries

¶157

To the East of the land belonging to Muniammal

¶158

To the West of the land of belonging to Ranganathan

¶159

To the South of the newly formed road

¶160

SA No.207/2023

¶161

¶162