Allowed

T G Vinay Kumar v. Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT17 Feb 2026SA/16/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order held that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against an entire property are void if the mortgagor only holds a fractional share due to a prior partition decree. The Tribunal allowed the application, quashing the possession and auction proceedings against the whole property but permitted recovery against the borrower's specific share.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the auction sale notice are quashed; possession proceedings against the applicant are barred.

T G Vinay Kumar versus Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI G.PICHAND, PRESIDING .FFICER

¶3

sA.No.16../2c24

¶4

T.G Vinay Kumar, S/o late T.G.Gnana prakasham, Aged 58 years, Occ:Rly.employee, R/o Plot No.81, Sy.No.81, Friends Colon, Bowenpally, Sec.bad.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized officer R/o H.No.4-1-37l lI, 1"t floor, Kundas Estate, Besides Jaya International, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶8

Suresh Anand Rao kuncham, Aged 50 years, Occ:business, R/o H.No. 175 Io I 8 I c / s / A, Harinagar, Zamistanpur, Musheerabd, Hyderabad-SOO 020.

¶9

Smt. Vinolia Gnana prakasam Thrikola Aged 5l years, Occ:house wife, R/o H.No. 175 to / 8 / c / 3 / A, Harinagar, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-S0O 020 ... Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Sn S.M.I{ussain & K.V.V.V.Charya Counsel for l.t Respondent : Sri Dharmendra prasad Respondents No.2&3 : Exparte Reserued 1.2026 17.02.2026 Uploadedpn 17 Fi8 k'*#

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the proceedings initiated by the l"t Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedure property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.XVII Addl.CMM, Hyderabad and also the Auction Sale Notice dt.ro.o2.2024 for conducting auction of the schedule propert5r on rl.o3.2o24 and to decrare the same as illegal and void.

¶13

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶14

The Applicant being aggrieved party to the measures initiated by the 1s Respondent, filed a suit for partition vide OS.No.g9 7 /2013 on the file of Ld.vI Sr.civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad in respect of the schedule property and the same was decreed on 06. 12.2013 and challenging the said decree and judgment, Respondent No.2 herein along with Smt.T.G.Vinolia filed appeal suit before the Hon,ble High Curt in CCCA No.136 /2OlT and the same is pending. Suppressing the fact, Respondent No.3 availed housing loan of Rs. 10 ,56,69gl_ from the lst Respondent and created mortgage over the SA schedule property without any right or title and thereafter committed default in repayment of the said loan. The lst Respondent initiated measures u/s 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and thereafter obtained orders from Ld.XVII Addl.CMM, Hyderabad for taking physical possession of the schedule property. Subsequently, the lst Respondent also issued the impugned Auction sale Notice dt.1o.o2.2o24 for conducting auction of the schedule property which is not a secured asset. Hence the SA.

¶15

l"t ly denying all the adverse allegations made in the ten t the Applicant herein is not an aggrieved party to initiated by the 1"t Respondent and the Frtftffilea lany relief. The 1"t Respondent being secured 2

¶16

creditor, initiated proceedings u/s 13(4) of the Act, 2OO2 and,thereafter proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession ofthe schedule properQr pursuant to the orders of Ld.XVII Addl.CMM, Hyderabad through advocate commissioner. The alleged proceedings in os.No.g7/2013 are not binding on the lst Respondent. Accordingly, 1"t Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶17

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld.Counsel for the lst Respondent whereas Respondents No.2&3 remained exparte. perused the material brought on record.

¶18

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶19

i. tulether the Applicant is entitled. to challenge the proceedings initiated bA the l"t Respondent for taking phgsical possessio n of tte scLrcdule propertg u/s 14 of tLe SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and also th.e impugned Auction sare Notice dt.10.02.2024 for conducting auction of the schedule propertg?

¶20

ii. To what relief ?

¶21

Poizt .l\Io.(i):-

¶22

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

¶23

Ld. counsel for the Applicant argued that the Applicant herein is 3.a parqr to the proceedings initiated by the lst Respondent against the schedule property. The SA e property bel,ongs to four family members and Applicant e l/4th share holder in the SA schedule property No.3 who is borrower fraudulently mortgaged in favour of lst Respondent. Respondcnt Nil.? ffigigp2yrro of K.Suresh Anand Rao is entitled to

¶24

&ror'"

¶25

1/4trt share in the house as per the family member certificate issued by the competent MRO , Musheerabad, Hyderabad. One T.G. Gnana prakasam is the original owner of the schedule property and he expired on 26.05.1990 leaving his wife and three children as legal heirs. Smt. T.G. Premalatha, wife of the deceased illegalry executed a Gift settlement Deed No' 1 605 / 2003 dt. 26' 05. 2003 in favour of her daughter/ Respondent No.3 herein in respect of first floor of schedule property. Respondents No.2&3 fraudulently ava,ed a housing loan from the 1st Respondent and deposited the title deed of l"t floor in SA schedule property as securit5r and created mortgage in favour of the lst Respondent illegalry. The Applicant who is one of the legal heirs of late TG Gnana prakasam, filed O.S.No.g 7 /2013 for partition of schedule propert5z before the Hon'bre VI sr.civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad and the same was decreed on r6.r2.2oL6 and the advocate commissioner appointed by the Hon'b1e court divided the sA schedule property into four equal parts and accordingly, Smt. T.G. Vinolia got one portion in the first floor and the Applicant herein got another portion in l"t floor of schedule property. In view of the above, the Gift settlement deed dt.26.05.2003 executed by smt.T.G.premaratha in favour of Respondent No.3 who is borrower of the lst Respondent in respect of entire lst floor of SA schedule property itself is void since Smt.T.G_ Premalatha herself is only 7+ share holder ofthe schedule property. The lst Respondent deliberately issued the e Auction Sale Notice dt.10.o2.2o24 in respect of entire house instead of only lst floor as per Gift Settlement Deed dt.26.05.2003. The impugned mortgage deed on the basis of which, the lst Respondent is claiming securit5r interest itself is void deed and so, it is untenable.

¶26

¶27

the l^st Respondent has not filed any materia.l evidence to establish ent is having security interest over the entire SA not denied the fact of passing preliminar5r decree family member certificate and also not cortrtulssroner report frled by the Applicant 17 FtBM^,t 4 4ll \

¶28

dt.19.09.2019 diving the schedule property into four equal shares pursuant to the decree passed in the O.S.No .gZ /2OI3.

¶29

The Applicant filed materiar documents in support of his contentions. As per the said documents, it is evident that Respondent No.3 who is borrower and mortgagor of the lst Respondent is having onry rl4th share in the schedule property as per the copy of the preliminary decree passed in os.No.87/2013 fiIed by the Applicant. The Applicant arso Iiled copy of the report of the advocate commissioner dt. 19.09.2019 under which, the schedule property is divided into four equal shares and smt.T.G. Premalatha who is executant of the impugned Gift settlement Deed in favour of Respondent No.3 herein is only having 1/46 share in the schedule property and the Respondent No.3 who is mortgagor of the lst Respondent got ll4tt share in lst floor ofthe SA schedule property and so, the impugned mortgage deed by virtue of which, the lst Respondent is proceeding against the entire schedule property itself is void. In view of the preliminary decree passed by the city civil court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.87/2013, Respondent No.3 who is mortgagor of 1st Respondent has no right or title over the entire SA schedule property and hence the lst Respondent has no securit5r interest over the entire sA schedule property on the basis of alleged Gift settlement Deed deposited by the Respondent No.3. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings initiated by the 1"t Respondent under provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the schedule property are void and liable to be set quashed.

¶30

Point No.(iil:-

¶31

In the result, , allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings Respondent under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 schedule property. However, tJ:re lst Respondent is ]aI Jdt6rhfo e*, against tllre I I 4th share of the Respondent No.3 in the sthedule perty to recover their dues by duly

¶32

following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2 OO2 and Rules made thereunder.

¶33

Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dctated to the P.s, transcibo.d bg her, anected., signed. and pronounced bg me in the open court on this the 1Vh dag of February, 2026)

¶36

sd/-

¶37

(G. GOPr CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

%<br>1t FESw *
<br>",,ffiw

¶39

triw
,,9*m,

T G Vinay Kumar v. Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T G Vinay Kumar v. Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd.

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

State Bank of India versus Sri. Sankatala Nagendra

Ms Young Stars and Little Stars Impressions and Another versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Sri Chiluka Rakesh

Sa Khazem versus Aptus value housing finance India Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Thirumala Traders

K Ramvikas versus Gic Housing Finance Limited