Dismissed

Jyoti Nandlal @ Jyoti Rani v. Indian Bank

DRT9 Dec 2025SA/562/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant challenging a bank's possession notice under the SARFAESI Act claimed ownership based on an unregistered agreement to sell. The Tribunal held that such an agreement does not create title under the Transfer of Property Act and dismissed the application, allowing the bank to proceed with recovery.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Bank is at liberty to proceed with recovery of dues.

Jyoti Nandlal @ Jyoti Rani versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DRT-I, DELHI

¶2

SA 562 of 2022

¶3

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA

¶5

SA No.562 of 2022

¶6

Jyoti Nandlal w/o Sh.Shiv Kumar Bahali Anandpur (98) Rohtak, Haryana-124001

¶7

--Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Indian Bank

¶10

1st Floor, Allahabad Bank Building

¶11

17, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001

¶12

M/s Ved Varat

¶13

(through proprietor) Sh.Ved Varat s/o Khaili Ram 1035, C/30 (New No.1978/29) Gali No.4, Kakroi Road Vikas Nagar, Sonipat, Haryana

¶14

--Respondents

¶15

Present:

¶16

For the Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Soni, Advocate For the respondent bank: Mr. Seema Gupta, Advocate.

¶17

Date of Reserve: 11.11.2025

¶18

Dated: 09.12.2025

¶19

FINAL ORDER

¶20

The present securitization application has been filed by the S. Applicant praying for restraining the respondent bank from taking physical possession of premises bearing undivided 36 sq.yards of Property no.1035 C/30 (New No.1978/29), Gali No.4, Kakroi Road, Vikas Nagar, Sonipat, Haryana 131001 (hereinafter referred as the property in question) and declare

5a -

DRT-I, DELHI

SA 562 of 2022

the impugned notice under 13(2) and (4) under the provisions of securitization Act 2002 as illegal, incompetent and void.

¶25

It is submitted that S. applicant is neither the borrower/guarantor nor mortgagor qua the property in question. It has further been submitted that respondent bank allegedly sanctioned & disbursed Cash Credit limit of Rs.38.00 lacs @9.60% interest on 25.05.2017 and respondent no.2 mortgaged the immovable property in question by executing loan documents granting cash credit limit to respondent no.2. It has further been submitted that applicant came into knowledge only after possession notice dated 03.10.2022 and immediately approached respondent no.2 who avoided to disclose about alleged notice but disclosed the facts after filing Suit for Partition when applicant tried to serve summons of suit. It has further been submitted that applicant filed Civil Suit for Partition No.189/2022 before Sonipat Distt. Court submitted that applicant with respondent no.2 jointly constructed one floor on property in question wherein applicant is the co-owner of suit property to the extent of undivided 36 sq.yds in the property out of 130 sq.yds being purchased from Sh.Joginder Singh s/o Sis Ram by way of full payment agreement dated 06.11.1989. It has further been submitted that respondent no.2 deliberately not appeared before Court despite notice and the Court vide order dated 12.05.2022 proceeded ex-parte and directed to maintain status quo qua the property in question. It has further been submitted that after purchase of 36 sq.yds by the applicant, father of plaintiff purchased remaining 94 sq.yds out. of 130 sq.yds from Sh.Joginder Singh, power of attorney holder of Sh.Mahavir Singh, Prem Chandra and Mukesh Pal by Sale Deed dated 30.05.1990. It has further been

¶26

DRT-I, DELHI

¶27

SA 562 of 2022

¶28

submitted that property in question was constructed in 19931994 and expenses were borne by respondent no.2 being father of applicant and applicant requested to divide the property but could not be done till date due to malafide intentions of respondent no.2. It has further been submitted that the respondent bank pasted possession notice on 17.10.2022 and applicant immediately contacted respondent bank whether they created security over alleged property without any due diligence but they refused rather threated to take forceful possession of alleged mortgaged property. It has further been submitted that respondent bank without any specific reasons without giving any hearing opportunity is trying to grab the property of applicant and applicant sent legal notice dated 16.08.2022 stating the facts about applicant's ownership and no objection to any enforcement measures initiated qua undivided share of respondent no.2. It has further been submitted that respondent bank has initiated SARFAESI measures over entire subject property however, the subject property undivided and order to get issue resolved, applicant has already filed Civil Suit before the Court which is pending adjudication and any action is prejudicial and illegal in the eyes of laws. It has further been submitted that respondent bank alleged that applicant has deliberately not impleaded respondent bank in Civil suit but applicant was not aware when suit was filed and not in possession of documentary evidence about mortgage and respondent bank admitted that factum of mortgage of undivided 94 sq.yds of property out of 130 sq.yards without any alleged basis that applicant in collusion with respondent no.2. It has further been submitted that account of respondent no.2 was classified as NPA on 30.09.2020 in contravention of order passed by Hon'ble

¶29

DRT-I,, DELHI

¶30

SA 562 of 2022

¶31

Supreme Court in WP (C) No.825/2020 titled "Gajendra Sharma & Anr. Vs Union of India" which vide order dated 03.09.2020 directed that accounts which were not declared NPA till 31.08.2020 shall not be declared NPA till further orders" and said order were continued till impugned action of applicant's loan account. It has further been submitted that whole action of respondent bank is not in accordance with law and has adopted approach of vengeance irrespective of fact and rules made under the provision of securitization act. Further it has been submitted that applicant prayed for allowing the present securitization application as respondent bank failed to considered mandatory requirements claiming over the immovable property which is under joint ownership of security applicant and undivided portion and neither valid mortgage was created nor complied notice u/s 13(2) of the Act. Accordingly, applicant prayed to declare notice u/s 13(2) and 13(4) as illegal, void and grant order of declaration that no amount is either due or payable by the applicant and property was never legally mortgaged with respondent bank not entitled to proceed ahead against the applicant.

¶32

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent bank has vehemently opposed the submission of Ld. Counsel for the applicant and submitted that applicant filed the application in connivance with her father i.e. respondent no.2 who mortgaged the property. It has further been submitted that applicant is having ownership of 36 sq.yds. of property in question and bank has only mortgage portion 94 sq.yds and has no right to stop from taking possession of mortgage property. It has further been submitted that applicant has already obtained stay from Civil Judge, Sonepat, Haryana and there is no need for applicant to obtain stay from this Tribunal

¶33

DRT-I, DELHI

¶34

SA 562 of 2022

¶35

as same is barred by law being Res-Judicata. It has further been submitted that applicant has filed frivolous petition by wrong submission before this tribunal as Sale Deed is exclusively in the name of respondent no.2 therefore this application be thrown outrightly and bank is legally entitled to take possession of that property. It has further been submitted that as per documents filed by the applicant showing she was minor at that time and has made no payment and purchased the property at her name for 36 sq.yds and concealed the said fact from this Tribunal while filing this application. It has further been submitted that applicant filed this application beyond the period of limitation and have no right title and interest in the property. It has further been submitted that applicant has admitted that she is neither borrower nor guarantor and approached this Tribunal with unclean hand and is unnecessarily creating hurdle despite knowing that bank has right full charge on the mortgaged property. It has further been submitted that applicant not claimed joint ownership of the property after attaining the majority and now raised at this stage is completely irrelevant. It has further been submitted that as per guidelines laid down by the Apex Court, No minor can make claim upon the property beyond the period of limitation, therefore applicant concealed the said fact and present application be dismissed on this ground and does not have any legal claim upon the property in question and passed directions to take possession of the mortgaged property owned by respondent no.2 as per mortgage sale deed dated 03.05.1990 and the mortgage qua the entire property was created in favor of the respondent bank by depositing the letter confirming deposit of title deeds dated 06.03.2009 by the father of the applicant and the applicant in collusion with her

¶36

DRT-I, DELHI

¶37

SA 562 of 2022

¶38

father i.e. respondent no.2 had filed the present false and frivolous securitization application. It has further been submitted that the applicant has no registered sale deed in her favor and the applicant is relying upon the notarized agreement to sell dated 06.11.1989 and the said document is no title document or valid sale which does not confer any title on the applicant to be treated as alleged owner of the property in question. It has further been submitted that the entire property in question is validly mortgaged with the respondent bank and accordingly, it has been prayed for dismissal of the present securitization application.

¶39

Heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the records thoroughly.

¶40

In the present matter, the borrower has availed the loan facilities from the respondent bank against the mortgage of the entire property in question. Apparently, the applicant is claiming as the owner of the property in question on the basis unregistered agreement to sell dated 06.11.1989, whereas the respondent bank is claiming its mortgage over the property in question since the year 2009. However, this Tribunal has to see whether the present securitization applicant has legal, valid and enforceable right and interest in the property in question. Apparently, the applicant is claiming to have interest in the property in question on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell dated 06.11.1989 executed between Mr. 3oginder Singh and the applicant. The Transfer of immovable property inter vivo is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

¶41

Section 5 of the said TP Act defines "transfer of property" as follows: "5. 'Transfer of property' defined. —In the following sections 'transfer of property' means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or

DRT-I, DELHI

SA 562 of 2022

more other living persons, or to himself or to himself and one or more other living persons and 'to transfer property' is to perform such act."

¶46

The Transfer of Property Act envisages five different modes for transferring a property but for the purpose of the present case we are only concerned with one of the modes i.e., by way of "Sale" and the same is dealt under section 54 of the TP Act which defines "sale" and a "contract for sale" as follows:

¶47

"54. 'Sale' defined. — 'Sale' Is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part promised.

¶48

Sale how made. —Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.

¶49

Contract for sale. —A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property"

¶50

That the aforesaid provision lays down a specific mode of execution of sale deed with respect to immovable property for concluding the sale of a property. In sale for an immovable property the value of which exceeds Rs.100/-, the three requirements of law are that the transfer of property of sale must take place through a validly executed sale deed, i.e., it must be in writing, properly attested and registered. Unless the sale deed is in writing, attested and registered, the transaction cannot be construed as sale, or in other words, the property will not be transferred.

DRT-I, DELHI

SA 562 of 2022

Apparently, there is a difference between a sale deed and an agreement for sale, or a contract for sale. A contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. While a sale is a transfer of ownership; a contract for sale is merely a document creating a right to obtain another document, namely a registered sale deed to complete the transaction of sale of an immovable property. The Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act in its definition of sale does not include an agreement of sale and neither confers any proprietary rights in favour of the transferee nor by itself create any interest or charge in the property. If after entering into a contract for sale of property, the seller without any reasonable excuse avoids executing a sale deed, the buyer can proceed to file a suit for specific performance of the contract.

¶55

The issue of an agreement for sale has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director v. State of Haryana and Another 3 and observed as under:

¶56

"16. Section 54 of the TP Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam [(1977) 3 SCC 247] observed:

¶57

"32. A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. (See Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra [AIR 1967 SC 744]). The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created by a contract for sale is recognised in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal obligation created by a contract of sale is described in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of property, but not amounting to an interest or easement therein.

5d-

SA 562 of 2022

DRT-I, DELHI

In India, the word 'transfer' is defined with reference to the word 'convey'. ... The word 'conveys' in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership. ***

¶62

... that only on execution of conveyance, ownership passes from one party to another...."

¶63

In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra [(2004) 8 SCC 614] this Court held:

¶64

"10. Protection provided under Section 53-A of the Act to the proposed transferee is a shield only against the transferor. It disentitles the transferor from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferee who is put in possession in pursuance to such an agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the proposed transferor who remains full owner of the property till it is legally conveyed by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the transferee. Such a right to protect possession against the proposed vendor cannot be pressed into service against a third party."

¶65

18.^{It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by} way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.

¶66

19.^{Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a} registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter."

¶67

In the present matter, undisputedly the applicant is claiming that there is only an agreement to sell, and there is no sale deed executed in her favour by Mr. Joginder Singh and as per the settled position of law, this document does not confer a valid title on the applicant as it is not a deed of conveyance as per Section 54 of the TP Act and at best, it only enables the applicant to seek for specific performance for the execution of a sale deed and does not create an interest or charge on the suit property. Further, on perusal of the aforesaid agreement to

Sef

SA 562 of 2022

DI1T-I, DELHI

sell it appears that in the said agreement nowhere it is Mentioned that the applicant would seek specific performance for execution of the sale deed/conveyance deed in her favor by the first party of the said agreement. Accordingly, the present applicant is not having valid title, right and interest in the property in question. Accordingly, the present securitization applicant has failed to prove that she is bonafide owner of the property in question and thus she is not having legal, valid and enforcement rights over the property in question.

¶72

In view of the above facts and circumstances and SARFAESI Act and Rules, this Tribunal is of the view that the respondent FI has followed the mandatory procedures as laid down under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, while initiating measures for recovery of its dues, therefore, the SARFAESI Application is liable to be dismissed.

¶73

(ORDER)

¶74

The SARFAESI Application filed by the applicant stands dismissed along with pending applications, if any, and the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed further to recover its dues as per law. The present order be uploaded immediately on the website of this Tribunal.

¶75

Final Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 9th December, 2025.

¶76

Dictated & Corrected by me.

¶77

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-I, Delhi

Jyoti Nandlal @ Jyoti Rani v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Nandlal @ Jyoti Rani v. Indian Bank

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

M/s Ojin Bakes versus South Indian Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus St.Xavier Public School

Idbi Bank versus Jagir Singh

Jabeen Ahmad Khan versus the Citizens Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Ms Chugh Trading Company versus Punjab National Bank

Idbi Bank versus Ms Metalfeb High Tech Pvt. Ltd.