Dismissed

Thota Supraja D/o Thota Hanumantha Rao v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT8 Dec 2025SA/74/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by a 3rd party purchaser challenging the bank's action for taking physical possession of mortgaged property. The Court held the Applicant lacked locus standi as she had no valid title and the Agreement of Sale was executed in violation of the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Thota Supraja D/o Thota Hanumantha Rao versus Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.74./2o24

¶5

Ms.Thota Supraja, D/o Thota Hanumantha Rao, Aged 24 years, Occjob R/o Manikonda, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

l.Bank of Maharashtra,

¶9

Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Zonal Office, 4-3-448 to 460 & 465 to 468, lst floor, Vinoothna Pittile Majesty, Gopal Bagh, Near Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabd-S0O 095

¶10

Mr.P.Vijay Kumar,

¶11

S/o P.S. Mohan Rao Aged 43 years, Occ:service, Rlo 8-2-60311l7, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶12

..Respondents.

¶13

Counsel for tle Applicant SnT.Vijag Kumar Counselfor the 7st Respondent Bank: Sri G. Adian Kiran Raj 2"d Respondent Exparte

¶14

Reserued on : 24.10.2O25 Pronounced on :08.12.2025 Uploaded on :09.12.2O25

¶15

:09.12.2O25

¶16

I . This application is filed Act, 2002, challenging the action for taking physical possession of tr,8 &amum advocate

¶17

commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, R.R. District in Crl.M.P.No.53S/2023 and to declare the sarne as illegal and void.

¶18

) The averments made in the application, in brief, are that: The Applicant is a 3rd party and Respondent No.2 was the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property and mortgaged the same in favour of the lst Respondent Bank towards securit5r for the loan ava,ed by him. Thereafter, the Applicant entered into Agreement of sare with the 2nd Respondent on 30.06.2 02L for a total consideration of Rs.30 Lakhs and paid Rs.23 lakhs as advance and the said agreement of sale is registered with tJle concerned Sub Registrar and subsequently, balance sale consideration was arso paid to the Respondent No.2 and taken possession of the schedule property. In the meanwhile, the 1"t Respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and trying to take physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CMM, R.R. District without issuing any notice and without following the due process of ,aw. The Respondent No.2 is making hectic efforts with the bank for a compromise settlement. Hence the SA.

¶19

¶20

The lst Respondent Bank liled their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the sA. The contentions of the lst Respondent Bank in brief are that, Respondent No.2 who is the absolute owner of the schedule property, availed housing loan in the year 2Ol4 from the lst Respondent Bank and in view of the default committed by the !,,a Respondent, the roan account of the Respondent No.2 was crassilied as NPA. The lst Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.Og.O6.2O22 u/s 13(2) of the SARF Act,2OO2 and thereafter possession notice dt.19.O2.2O24 to the t. Thereafter, the lst Respondent proceeded u/s 14,r'of AESI Act, 2OO2 for appointment of advocate co$rniqgfne4,,.:before the Ld. CMM, R.R. District for taking physical possession oftire schedure property. The Applicant herein is

¶21

¶22

a 3rd party and the a eged Agreement of Sale dt.30.o6.202r entered into by the Applicant with the 2.d Respondent is subsequent to the mortgage created by the 2nd Respondent in respect of the schedule property in favour of the l"t Respondent Bank towards securit5r to the credit facilities availed by him and arso subsequent to the demand notice issued by the l"t Respondent bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2. Moreover, on one hand, the Applicant is contending that she is aware of the mortgage created in respect of the schedule property by the 2nd Respondent in favour of the I st Respondent and on the other hand, claiming that the she has become absolute owner of the schedule property by virtue of the alleged agreement of sale. The Applicant is having no right to file SA challenging the steps initiated by the lst Respondent bank against the schedule property under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2. The lst Respondent Bank has duly issued demand notice and possession notice to the 2nd Respondent and the Applicant being 3ra party, has no locus_standi to question the action of the l"t Respondent in initiating SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property. Accordingly, the lst Respondent Bank prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶23

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the lst Respondent Bank whereas 2nd respondent remained exparte. perused the material brought on record.

¶24

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶25

i) Wltether the Applicant has ang loans_stanfii to challenge the

¶26

proceedings initiated bg the lst Respondent bank for taking phgsicat possession ,,.:itf the schedule propertg through aduocate *i

¶27

iil * l

¶28

¶29

Potnt tlo.(ll r

¶30

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the lst Respondent Bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶31

7 ' The Applicant is craiming that she entered into Agreement of sale dt.30.06.2021 with the 2"d Respondent for purchase of schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.30 lakhs and paid an amount of Rs.23 lakhs towards advance. Admittedly, the 2!d Respondent created mortgage in respect ofthe schedule property in favour of the lst Respondent Bank much prior to the said agreement of sale and the Applicant herein is also aware of the same as admitted by her. In fact, the 1st Respondent Bank issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of the Act to the 2"a Respondent after declaring the loan account as NpA, way back in the year 202 r . After issuance of demand notice by the 1st Respondent Bank, the 2na Respondent is not expected to execute Agreement of Sare in respect of the schedule property which is under mortgage. Mere agreement of sale does not create any right or title over the schedule property, at the best, it gives right to the Applicant to claim damages from the 2"d Respondent for executing such agreement of sale subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the lst respondent Bank. The Applicant being a 3rd part5r, has no right or authority to contend that the rst Respondent Bank has not issued demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2. It is pertinent to note that Respondent No.2 is not contesting the SA and for the reasons best known to him, he remained exparte. The alleged Agreement of SaIe is executed in violation of Section 13(13) of SARIAESI Act, 2OO2 and.hence the same does not have any Iegal sanctity urrh,: tna Applicant has no locus_standi to challenge the proceedings initiatei by\the rst Respondent under the provisions of sARAFcEsr Ach,^'dfi02 by virtue of the said Agreement of sale dt.30.06.2021.

¶32

¶33

8' So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there are no bonafides on the part of the Applicant in filing the present SA challenging the action of the l"t Respondent bank for taking physical possession of the schedure property u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and the Applicant is not entitled for any relief as there are no merits in the SA' Accordingly, this point is answered against the Applicant and in favour of the 1st Respondent Bank.

¶34

Polnt No.liil:-

¶35

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed. consequently, the Interrocutory Applications, pending if any, sharl stand - disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶36