The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application by third-party appellants challenging a bank's auction of disputed property. The Tribunal held the appellants could not re-agitate the title and secured creditor status issues already decided against the predecessor in title in earlier proceedings, rendering the subsequent settlement deed non est in law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD
DAI-ED I-}JIS l-HE 27111 DAY OF MAY, 2C.25
PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
SA.No.290/2C.22
Tersus
SA.No.290/2022
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2oo2 to decrare that the application schedule property is not a secured asset as craimed by the l"t Respondent Bank and to declare the auction of the apprication schedule property conclucted by the 1"t Respondent Bank, in pursuance of the Sale Notice dt.29.0g.2022, is illegal and void.
The averments made by the Applicants in the application, in brief, are that the applicants are third parties and they are absolute owners and possessors of the portion of premises of schedule property by virtue of settlement deed Doc.No.sg6l2o15, dated 16.o3.2o15 registered with sRo, Maredpally, secunderabad. original title deeds, link documents of property along with physical possession are with the appricants. while so, on 22.ro.2o1g, an advocate commissioner came to property and handed over notice to the Applicants in the name of M ls Shivam Gold, 2"d Respondent herein and smt p. Savithramma calling upon them to deliver physical possession of the schedure property within 15 days in pursuance of orders in crr.Mp No.216l201g passed by Lfl. cMM, Hyderabad and the Applicants challenged the same by filing sA.No'44412or8. The Husband of 1"t applicant viz., M.A. saleem Ansari already fired oS No.srl2013 against Respondent No.2 herein on the file of Ld. I Addl. chief Judge, city civil court, secunderabad for cancellation of the registered sale deed Doc.No.S04r2o1r and the same was decreed in favour of her husband. Further, Ld. I Addl. chief Judge, city civil court, Secunderabad has also wrote a letter dt'11.08.2014 to Sub-Registrar, Marredpaly to cancel the sle Deed bearing Doc.No.So4/2o1 r. In view of the same, the alleged mortgage in favour of the l sr Ircspondcnt uank is not enforceable and f, theLII(, application schedule property is ,o, a secured asset. The 1st respondent rit*,tl#i..$trr.2nd respondent for criminalTIIII IAI conspiracy i'&th$ ct"i"";li'&ttN{" ","" "r. ine applicants are the absolute "ffrtx" and pogs.""o.itrr\ ."oJ rhe 1"t Respondent Bank has no manner "flTnt ?'l t'\qP ,r,'; 4s-, \JL! ,dur#l W
SA.No.290/2022
3' 1'he 1st r?espondent filed rcply statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the application. The contentions of the 1"r Respondent Bank, in brief, are that the husband of the 1st applicant and father of 2'd applicant viz., Mr. M.A. Sareem Ansari filed sA 245/2o13 o, the file of this Tribuanl with the same claim as made in the present SA by the Appricants herein and the said SA 24sl2or3 was dismissed by this Tribunal on rg.o2.2ors and on Appear No.54/2o16, Hon'ble DRAT Korkata also dismissed the Appear vide order dated 07,11.2017 0n merits. The Applicants herein are claiming title ovcr thc schcdulc propcrty through Settlement Deed dt'16'03'20l'5, registered as Doc.No.s86l2ol5, which was executed during the pendency of the proceedings initiated by Mr. M.A. Saleem Ansari' The Appricants having acquired title wh,e the matter was subjudice, th\eir rights would depend on the success of their predecessor in title. Their ;predecessor having failed and the said proceedings having attained finality, the same are binding on the Applicants. The very same issue cannot be agitated by the Applicants as successors in interest in another proceeding as the same would be hit by the rure of res jud.icata. The issue of Mr. M.A. saleem Ansari filing os'No'5 t /2013 and obtaining of ex-parre decree ,w,ithout impleading the 1"t Respondent Bank was also considered in the earlier proceedings and same have no further relevance in the present proceedings. The Applicants independent claim to the propert5r as third-parties having been rejccted are not entitred to challenge the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent Bank.
- The 3'd Respondent-auction purchaser liled his Reply statement ::::::.11"bonaride purchaser or the application that' }!?,.g L^^-^ schedule i r property.tffiigi.".h:e.ticipated .;:;,-.:i, ,.,,i$itipated in the arrr_rinn auction and :: havrng*been declaredi/,ar,itrrr highc.sfi r for Rs.85,1O,OOO/. The 3.d RespondentT,hqs dcposited the bid amount with the 1st ResPonde"{{t"u ir'lx ?ffi a ?i r-'.ni' z ' i"j, tA ..r t':.. '. .:', " :.)' '-'i"^ ii,, ,0" .'ti]r''
SA.No.290/2022
Point No.(i):-
the Ld. Counsel for the 1st Respondent Bank reiterated their respectivc vcrsions as statcd supra.
availed credit st Respondent Bank herein and of the lst Respondent. As
the 2"d the loan outstanding, the 1"t
sA.No.290/2022
Respondent ,ank initiatecr recovery process by invoking the measures under SARFAESI Act against the 2nd Respondent. As per the version of Mr. M.A. Saleem Ansari in thc aforesaid SA.No.24 s/2o13, Sri sanjay Goel, has not full-ilred the terms a'd conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding dt.25.03.2ot1 and so the property has come back to him and that he arso filecl 0s.No.5 1 0t 2023 0n the file of I Adc,. chief Judge, city civil court, secunderabad against sri Sanjay Goer and the said suit was clecreed ex-parte vide order dt.03.o r.2or4,wherein sRo, Marredpaiiy was directed to cancer the Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.504l2o11, dt.2s.03.20r 1. It is further contended by him that, in pursuance of the said order, IlRo, Marredpalry has cancered the Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.S04/2or1. so, Shri M.A. Saleem Ansari contended that, the r sr Respondent r3ank has no right to proceed against the schedure property. Upon filing of counter by the 1st Respondent Bank in the said sA.No.24s/2a13 and upon hearing both parties, this Tribunar vide order d,t.19.o2.2015 had dismissed the said sA' Challenging the said order dt.lg,o2.2015, passed by this Tribunar in sA'No'24s/2or3, Shri M.A. Saleem Ansari preferred Appear No'54/2o16 before the Hon'ble DRAT, I(orkata and the said appeal has also ended in dismissal vide order of the Hon,bre DRAT, Kolkata, dt'o7'11.2077. Trrc rereva.t portion of the said order of the Hon,ble DRAT, Kolkata d,L.or.r 1 .2orr is extractetr below for better appreciation:-
"I haue consicrered- the riuar submzssions and. perused the record.. The Memoranlum of ii.i.t"nd.ing is an unregistered document. It has been"""p"r""aed. bg tlrc sale deed executecr subseqiLentrg ir"n-- o" durg registered' Therefore, on the zxecution of the uarid. sare !^!!:^^::::::du: .e1iia"rstandins has tost i/s sisnffi cance.rhesuitwhich"has;;;;';t;;'XrrliZ""o"rTrrir!, against Sri Sanigwkzl tt)os n nnth,oi,,^ ^_.:1 ,^1SK;a collusiue suit.The Eiink has 'r",";'i:rtf i:;it 'iftrffiK u",i1y..ry::,{ 'h. ciuit ;;-;,;,i'".j",':":,:,,1r,ffi Pftffn;!"^?:y!nasa-rigltt **"ff {,ri:;;';:;:r:iflfrf ";?;.,i,:;;:;:T,",{"jli "";ui"?:1?'\w"tgf '';;;"1;i";""'z'{ii"iJ f ,\F *p"v rr ;f;rolY 7 .
SA.No.290/2D)
cancellation of the sale deed, It further establishes that the suit was collusiue.
In t.he facls and circumslances I do not.find anu error in the impugned order. The appeal fails ctnd is dismissed."
SA.No.290/).D2
order o[ thc IIon'blc l)RAT, K.lkata has attained linality.,l.hc Applicants by virl-ue of the Gift Settlement Deed dt. r6.03.2o1s, which is non est in lau', cannot again re-agitate their claim over thc schech-rlc property, which has already been decided by this Tribunal w.ith respcct to the right of mortgage over the schedule property in favour of the 1"t Respondent tlank in sA.No.24 sl2ol3 vide ordcr dt.19.02.2o1s, which is also up-held by the Honble DRnr in Appeal No.54/2O16 vide order dt.O7 . I I .2O tZ.
Point No.(ii)*
(Dictated to the Priuate se^clgt-arv. trutrc<'rrbed bt1 her, c<trrectetl, siqnecl ctrtd pronoutrct:d. btl rrte it tlrc opert coun on this the 2Vh dag of May, 2025).
sd/(c. coPrcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
tN
*<br>-7
,.S
Q ^€r
Nrl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether applicants have valid grounds to declare the scheduled property not a secured asset to set aside the auction conducted by the bank.
Whether a Gift Settlement Deed executed by the predecessor in interest after a judgment is non est in law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N.A.Referred
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs. Athiya Begum W/o Mr. M.A. Saleem Ansari
Mr. M.A. Junaid S/o Mr. M.A. Saleem Ansari
Bank of Baroda Saifabad Branch
Sri Sanjay Goyal
Smt. Mrudula Thatikonda
Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
