Dismissed

Smt. Sankella @ Sankendla Vijaya v. Piramal Capital and Housing Limited

DRT15 Jul 2026SA/111/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A debtor contested a possession notice issued by a secured creditor. The Tribunal held that the applicants established only third-party status via an unregistered re-conveyance deed and thus lacked locus standi to challenge proceedings initiated against a third-party owner registered under a sale deed. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application and Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Smt. Sankella @ Sankendla Vijaya versus Piramal Capital and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1 5TH DAY OF JULY.2026

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

sA.No.111/2c25

¶5

Smt.Sankella @ Sankendla Vijaya, W/o Kanthaiah, aged 60 years, Occ:house wife,

¶6

Sankella @ Sankendla Kanthaiah, S/o Lachaiah, aged 59 years, Occ:Govt. employee

¶7

Sankella @ Sankendla Raju, S/o Kanthaiah, aged 37 years, Occ: business, All are R/o H.No.3-6-435, Subhash Nagar, Karimnagar Town& District

¶8

. . Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

l.Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Branch Office at D.No.7-1-615,6t6,6t2 lA, Imperial towers, 4s floor, Unit: 1,2&8, Ameerpet,

¶11

Main road, Hyderabad-SOO 016.

¶12

Mallesh Baddula, S/o Ramulu, aged 33 years, Occ: business

¶13

Smt.Manga Baddula, Both are R/o D.No.2-3 -647 / A/86, New Prem Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad

¶14

*
1 5Jut 2S2$ ?
,-l

¶15

Also at H.No. 14,11,74,D77,l}t, Moosarambagh, Beside Max Hospital, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-500 036.

¶16

Counsel for the Applicants Counselfor the l't Respondent Respondents No.2 &3

¶17

Si Ch. Sreerama Murthy Smt.P.S.Sujata Exparte

¶18

Reserued on :08.07.2026 Pronounced on : 15.07.2026 Uploaded on : 15.07.2026

¶19

-:ORDER:-

¶20

This application is filed by the Applicants^{u/s. 17 of the SARFAESIAct,} 2002, challenging the Possession^{Noticedt.06.02.2}25issuedby the 1st} Respondent against the schedule^{property and to declarethe same as} null and void.

¶21

The averments made in the^{application, in brief,are that:}

¶22

The Applicant No. 1 is neither^{borrower nor a guarantor and she is 3!d} party to the proceedings initiated^{by the 1st Respondent' The Applicant} No.1 purchased the schedule^{property from one Ponugoti Ram Gopal} Rao and another under a^{Regd.Sale Deed dt.26.09.2001for a sale} consideration of Rs.36,000 I^{-and the same was registered vide} document No.5684/2O01.^{As the Applicant No. 1 was suffering with} iinancial problems, she executed^{a nominalRegd' sale deed in favour} of Respondent No.2 and^{subsequently,RespondentNo'2 inturn} executed a Re-conveyance^{Deed(unregistered)ot 04.o2.2019in favour} of the Applicant No. 1 as^{the Applicant repaidan amount of Rs'3lakhs} to Respondent No.2 and^{he had also given a receipt.Subsequently,on} Oa.Ol.2024, Respondent^{No.2 mortgagedthe house constructedin the} schedule^{propertyby depositing title deeds with the l"t Respondent by} creating the alleged sale^{deeddt.o4.o2.2ol9. Without verification of} the 1"t Respondent^{granted loan tothe} .sale deed dt.o4.o2.2ol9^{was obtainedby} ently and without^{consent and will of the} pondents No.2&3 created^{mortgage in} Respondent No.2 has^{no rightto create} schedule property in favour^{of the l"t}

¶23

¶24

Respondent and the same is not binding on the Applicants. Challenging the same, the Applicants filed OS.No.3Ol2024 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Sr.Civil Judge, Karimnagar seeking declaration of title and the same is pending for adjudication. While things stood thus, the 1"t Respondent issued possession notice dt.O6.O2.2O2S and also trying to take physical possession of the schedule property without following due process of law. The Applicants have not received the alleged demand notice and possession notice or any prior notices. Hence the SA.

¶25

¶26

The 1st Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA. The contentions of the 1"t Respondent in brief are that, Applicant No. 1 availed housing loan from M/s Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. The Respondent Herein vide orders of the Hon,ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench II, had acquired M/s Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.. Admittediy, the Applicants are 3.d parties to the loan transaction between the Respondent No.1 and Respondents No.2&3. The applicants have no locus standi to flle the present SA and the Applicants are not owners of the SA schedule property. Admittedly, the Applicants have sold the schedule property in favour of Respondent No.2 herein vide Regd. Sale Deed No.1157/2019. The Respondent No.2 purchased the schedule property from the Applicant No.I vide sale deed dt.O4.O2.2Ol9 by paying sale consideration and the same was not a nominal deed and an unregistered Re-conveyance deed holds no validity and mere residence by the Applicants does not invalidate the transfer of ownership. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 mortgaged the schedule property in favour of Respondent No. 1 il-of title deeds in security to the loan availed by him. dent No.2 committed default in repayment of spondent initiated SARFAESI n(A* ^'"St .,ilP proceedings. s8, ,n. effii",,,," no right to challenge the SARFAESI "t^{Respondentas they are 3.d} parties to the gly, the lst Respondent prayed to dismiss the ffiffi#

¶27

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and Ld.^{Counselfor the l"t} Respondent whereas Respondents No.2 & 3^{remained exparte' Perused} the material brought on record.

¶28

Now, the points that arise for consideration are,-

¶29

Whether tlrc Applicants haue ang loans-standi^{to challenge the} Possession Notice dt.06.02.2025 issued bg tlv^{7"t Respondent} against the sclrcdule^property?

¶30

iil To uhat relief.)

¶31

Point No.lil :-

¶32

During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel^{for the Applicantsand} Ld. Counsel for the l"t Respondent reiterated^{their respectiveversions} as stated supra.

¶33

The specific contention of the Applicants is that^{the ApplicantNo.1 is} the original owner of the schedule^property vide^{Regd. sale deed} dt.26.O9.2OOl and due to financial^{problems, she executed a nominal} Regd. sale deed in favour of the Respondent^{No.2. RespondentNo.2} created mortgage in favour of the^{1"t Respondentin securityto the loan} availed by him but the Respondent No.2^{has no} right^{overthe schedule} property as he executed Re-conveyance Deed dt.O4.O2.2Ol9 in^favour of the Applicant No. 1 and so, t-he mortgage^{created in favourof the 1st} Res t of the schedule property by the Respondent No.*'i 7 ,t-

¶34

Applicants right over the schedule property by^virtue ,..1*fdllo ance Deed dt.O4.O2.2OI9 executed by t No.2 created mortgage in respect of the 4

¶35

schedule property in favour ofthe 1st Respondent in security to the loan availed by him by deposit of title deeds. The Applicant No.1 admittedly executed Regd. Sale Deed No.1 157 l2ol9 dt.O4.O2.2O19 in favour of Respondent No.2 and by virtue of the same, Respondent No.2 became the absolute owner of the schedule property and he created mortgage in respect of the schedule property in favour of the lsr Respondent by deposit of title deeds in security to the loan availed by him. The Applicants are claiming right and title over the property on the basis of mere Re-conveyance deed dt.04.02.2019 executed by the Respondent No.2 in favour of Applicant No.1 which is unregistered document and the same is not valid and it cannot give any right to the Applicants to claim ownership over the SA schedule property. The Applicant No. 1 being a 3.d party, has no right or authority to contend that the 1 "t Respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SAFAESI Act,2OO2 in issuing possession notice dt.O6.O2.2025 against the schedule property. However, the 1"t Respondent has specifically averred that they have issued demand notice and possession notice in respect of the schedule property in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and Rules made thereunder by duly following the procedure and there are no violations. However, the Applicants have preferred OS.No.3O 12024 before the civil court and the civil court is the competent forum to decide the claim of the Applicants in respect of the schedule property. So, the Appiicants have no locus-standi to challenge the proceedings initiated by the 1.t Respondent in respect of the schedule propert5r under the provisions of SARAFAESI Act,2OO2.

¶36

So, co i&ring tances, I am of the opinion that there are n Applicants in filing the present SA C th6 d&.eB3["" dt.o6.o2.2o25 issued by the 1.t Res asset and the Applicants are not entitl no merits in the SA. Accordingly, this

¶37

point is answered against the Applicants and in favour of the^1st Respondent.

¶38

Point No.(ii):-

¶39

In the result, the^present Securitization^{Applicationis dismissed.} Consequently, the Interlocutory^{Applications, pending if any, shall} stand disposed of.^No order^{as to costs.}

¶40

Communicate a copy^{of this order to the partiesconcerned.}

¶41

(Dictoted to the^p.A, transcibed^{bg her,corrected.,signed and pronouncedbg mein the open court onthis the 1 5hdag} of Jutg, 2026).

¶42

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

Ll, ^"rRuEQ^4" asst.dillfrar oR]:i,^y,lnEnABAA.

¶44

:\ ..?

Smt. Sankella @ Sankendla Vijaya v. Piramal Capital and Housing Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sankella @ Sankendla Vijaya v. Piramal Capital and Housing Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shakthi Infra Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.

Dhanalakshmi Bank versus Mr. Gajjala Saptagiri

State Bank of India versus M/S. Balaji Moulding Works

Canara Bank versus M/S. Goshen Exim

Sri Jalander Kalakuntla versus Cholamandalam Investament and Finance Company Limited

Kondeti Devadayamani versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.