Dismissed

Shila Kumari v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT17 Jan 2025SA/219/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single applicant sought to quash the SARFAESI action and possession notice issued by the respondent bank, alleging that the primary borrower died before the loan was sanctioned. The tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the loan documents were forged or that the borrower was not liable, and citing deficiencies in establishing her status as legal heir and rep

What did the court decide?

Application SA 219 of 2023 is dismissed with costs.

Shila Kumari versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

DRT,PATNA

SA219 of 2023 IJI

DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNALPATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer :Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

SA- 219of 2023

¶7

1 Smt. Shila Kumari, W/o Late Indradeo Chaubey, Resident of MohaLLa- Aziz Lane, Mithapur Yarpur, PoLice Station - Jakkanpur, District - Patna, Pin - 800001.

¶8

. AppLicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Life Insurance Corporation of India Housing Finance Ltd., having its registered office at Bombay Life BuiLding, 2nd FLoor, 45/47, Veer Nariman Road, Fort Mumbai (Maharashtra), Pin - 400001 through its Managing Director.

¶11

LlC Housing Finance Ltd, 4th FLoor, Bihar Housing FinanciaL Corporation BuiLding, Frazer Road, PoLice Station - KotwaLi, Patna, Pin - 800001 through its Area Manager.

¶12

The Area Manager, LlC Housing Finance Ltd, 4th Floor, Bihar Housing Financial Corporation BuiLding, Frazer Road, PoLice Station - KotwaLi, Patna, Pin - 800001.

¶13

The Authorised Officer, LlC Housing Finance Ltd, 4th FLoor, Bihar· Housing FinanciaL Corporation BuiLding, Frazer Road, PoLice Station - KotwaLi, Patna, Pin - 800001

¶14

Jitendra Kumar, Son of Late Indradeo Chaubey, Resident of MohaLLa- Aziz Lane, Mithapur Yarpur. PoLice Station - Jakkanpur, District - Patna, Pin - 800001.

¶15

--respondents

¶16

Present:

¶17

For the Applicant : Sh. Dhanendra Chaubey,Advocate

¶18

For the Respondent Bank

¶19

: Sh. Kaustubh, Advocate

¶20

Dated: 17.012025

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Present appLication has been fiLed with a prayer to quash entire

¶23

¶24

ORT, PATNA

¶25

SA 219 of 2023 U]

¶26

SARFAESIaction taken against the property of applicant alongwith the possession notice.

¶27

The brief fact of the case is that in the year 2017a sum of RS.25lacs was financed by Hinduja Housing Finance to Jitendra Kumar, respondent no. 5 herein and Indradeo Chaobey. The borrower created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed of property in the name of Indra OeDChaubey. Later on, in the year 2018the loan account was taken over by the LlC Housing Finance Ltd where Indradeo Choubey. Due to default in repayment, the account was classified as NPA on 15.08.2022by the LlC Housing Finance Ltd. In order to recover outstanding dues the respondent bank initiated SARFAESIAction against the borrowers by issuing demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 20.12.2022of the act calling upon the borrower to make the payment of RS.30,04,987.15.Thereafter, the respondent took possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 02,03.2023 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Aggrieved from the possession notice, present SA has been filed by the applicant.

¶28

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel of applicant that the husband of applicant Late Indradeo Chaubey had purchased the property in question by registered Sale Deed in the year 1978. Accordingly, came into possession of the property in question. The husband of the applicant died on 03.09.2016 leaving behind his wife (applicant herein), two sons namely Ajay Chaubey, Jitendra Kumar and four daughters namely Indu Bala, Bindu Bala, Sindhu Bala and Madhu Bala as heirs and legal representative. No charge was created on the property in question. Suddenly the present applicant received a demand notice dated 20.12.2022issued by the respondent financial intuition in the name of her husband Indradeo Chaubey. As per demand notice, the loan was sanctioned in the year 2018 while the husband of the applicant died in the year 2016. On receipt of said

b\I>\.,j)(

DRT, PATNA

SA 219 of 2023 [JI

¶34

demand notice, the applicant sent her objection dated 08.02.2023u/s 13(3-A) of the act to the respondent financial institution. But the respondent FI without deciding the representation of the applicant pated a Possession Notice dated 02.03.2023 on the property in question. However, the Sale Deed No. 7702 dated 25.11.1978 mentioned in the possession notice is different from the Sale Deed of the applicant. The husband of the applicant died in the year 2016 while the loan was granted by the Hinduja Finance Ltd. in the year 2017and the same was taken over by the LlCHFL in the year 2018. Then how the .dead person can mortgage his property with the Financial Institution. No loan agreement was executed by the husband of the applicant with LlCHFL. If there is a signature of her husband on the loan agreement, it might be forged.

¶35

On the contrary, ld. Counsel of the respondent bank submits that on 01.03.2017a sum of RS.25 lacs was financed by Hinduja Housing Finance to Jitendra Kumar, respondent no. 5 and Indradeo Chaobey for the construction of a house. In the said loan account Indradeo Chaubey was co-borrower and mortgaged his property in question towards security of the loan. During the repayment of loan amount, at the request of respondent nO.5the loan account was taken over by the LlCHFL. Accordingly, the LlCHFL issued Cheque bearing no. 141722of HDFCBank for RS.25lacs in favour Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd. on 28.09.2018.Accordingly, the Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd. had given NOCdated 26.02.2019to the borrower Jitendra Kumar and coborrower Indradeo Chaubey. Before the LlCHFL, Indradeo Chaubey became the primary applicant and Jitendra Kumar became coborrower. Indradeo Chaubey mortgaged his property with LlCHFL toward security of loan granted to him. Due to default in repayment, the account was classified as NPA on 15.08.2022by the LlC Housing Finance Ltd. Subsequently, the respondent FI initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrowers by issuing demand notice u/s 13(2)

(\ / ./
V _'~\
"1

DRT, PATNA

SA 219 of 2023 [J)

¶40

dated 20.12.2022of the act calling upon the borrower to make the payment of Rs.30,04,987.15. No representation was received to the LlCHFL against demand notice from the borrowers. Hence, the respondent proceeded further and took possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 02.03.2023 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESIAct. The said possession notice was aLso published in two newspapers. Thereafter, the respondent FI moved before District Magistrate u/s 14 of the act for physicaLpossession of the property. Against which, the District Magistrate passed an order dated 16.05.2023for the assistance towards physicaL possession of the property in question.

¶41

As far as the death of borrower Indradeo Chaubey is concerned, the respondent FI has no information. It came to notice after receipt of a copy of the present application. The Loanwas granted to the borrower Indradeo Chaubeyas well as co borrower Jitendra Kumar. After avaiLing LoanfaciLities, the borrower has aLso repaid a certain amount by 16.08.2022. Now after initiation of SARFAESIaction, the appLicant came with a faLseand frivoLous case with convenience of respondent no. 5 to defeat the claim of LlCHFL. The vaLidtty of the death certificate of Indradeo Chaubey is aLso required to be ascertained as the Loandocuments were executed by the Indradeo Chaubeywith the LlCHFL in the year 2018.

¶42

I have heard Ld. CounseLfor the parties and gone through the record.

¶43

It has been alleged that the alleged borrower Indradeo Chaubey had died on 03.09.2016whiLethe alleged Loanwas granted in the year 2017 and subsequently it was taken over by the LlCHFL in the year 2018. It is aLsoalleged that on receipt of demand notice dated 20.12.2022,the appLicanthad sent a representation before the bank but the bank did not repLy the same. It is further alleged that the alleged borrower has never executed any Loandocuments with the respondent FI. If

ORT.PATNA

SA219 of 2023 U]

there is a signature of her husband on the loan agreement, it might be forged.

¶48

On perusal of records it appears that the present application has been filed claiming her co-sharer in the mortgaged property after the alleged death of Indradeo Chaubey.without impleading his other legal heirs except respondent no.5.

¶49

In the case of Oaya Ram &Ors. Vs. ShyamSundari&Ors. 1965 AIR 1049(SC). the full bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly stated that:

¶50

"If the impleaded legal representative sufficiently represents the estate af the deceased and the decision obtained with him an record will bind nat merely the impleaded representative but the entire estate incfuding those not brought an the record".

¶51

It is also important to mention that respondent number 5 who is the Son of alleged mortgager. did not file any reply or anything to support the application or to explain how the title dead of the mortgaged assets was deposited with the LlCHFL.The applicant has not filed the original Title deed which is supposed to be in her possession when not deposited for security of loan inquisition. In the circumstances· it cannot be said that the Title deed deposited with the LlCHFL is forged as the copy of Sale Deed annexed by the applicant with the application is different from the copy of Sale Deed annexed with a counter affidavit of the bank. It could also not be proved that the signature of Indradeo Prasad on the loan documents availed with LlCHFL is forged. Moreover. the copy of sale deed filed by the applicant does not bear the Signature of Indradeo Choubey. The applicant did not file the succession certificate or the copy of the family register to prove that she is the wife of Indradeo Chaubey.The applicant has filed a copy of Adhar wherein the name of her father is mentioned.

¶52

In these circumstances it appears that either the death certificate is

¶53

¶54

DRT, PATNA

¶55

SA 219 of 2023 IJ]

¶56

forged or the Jitendra prasad obtained a loan through some imposter. Both the cases confirm the conspiracy of all the family members to defraud the financial institution.

¶57

10.ln view of the above discussion, the present application fails to succeed.

¶58

ORDER

¶59

The application SA 219of 2023,is dismissed with costs.

¶60

Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶61

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open cou ~ on this 15TH Day of January, 2025.

¶62

,\eyP Y7 j. \7. . .

¶63

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶64

Presiding Officer

¶65

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Shila Kumari v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shila Kumari v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S G Preservatives Private Limited versus Bank of Baroda

Bharat Construction and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Edge Techno Chem and Ors. versus Indian Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Alok Fashion

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Vasudevan Sridhar

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mrs.Arshiya Jabeen