The Applicant is neither borrower nor guarantor and 3.d party to the impugned proceedings initiated by ths lst Respondent. Originally the Applicant is the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property vide Regd.Sale Deed No. 1052/23 dt.14.O2.2O23. Respondent No.2 made the Applicant believe that the property is free from all encumbrances and sord the same to the Applicant by receiving varid sale consideration of Rs.22,50,000/_ Respondent No.2 informed that her husband who died, kept the link documents somewhere and assured to handover the documents to the Applicant. While things stood thus, on 26.09.2023, one advocate commissioner came to the schedule property along with the employees of Respondent No.l and asked her to vacate the schedure property as the same is owned by the Respondent No.2 and mortgaged in favour of the lst Respondent by the Respondent No.2 for the roan obtained by her and later failed to make payments. Respondent No.2 by suppressing the mortgage of the property, sold the same to the Applicant by receiving huge amount and played fraud with the Applicant. The Applicant filed police complaint against Respondent No.2 and the same is pending enquiry. The Applicant is bonafide purchaser of the schedule property. The impugned demand notice and possession notice were not served on the Applicant who is residing in the application schedule property and the said possession notice was neither affxed n the schedule proper$z nor published in two leading newspapers. The l st Respondent initiated proceedings *".fti1g phvatrg3r possession of the schedule properry o se9lid.Sr.l+ bT.t+\e'SABI\E Act 2oo un d er Se9liff.g'*tt af 1e'SA,ry$,\p Sr Act , 2oo 2 on the file of Ld.CJM, WaranSaf"'without G{tr. foll-o;rving @," process. So, the said proceedings are lresffia rfbl gT.51"
