Bank and she paid regular EMIs. The borrower died on 2O.O2.2O21 leaving two legal heirs named Sai Charan, Applicant herein and Manjula.. Till the date of her death, the borrower paid Rs.9,g5,000 and Rs.4,82,000/- in both the loan accounts. After the death of the borrower, the legal heirs approached the Bank and submitted death certificate and insurance policy and requested to waive both the loans as they are covered by insurance and also submitted representations for considering insurance coverage and restructuring of loans. But without considering the same and without considering the amounts paid by the legal heirs after the death of the borrower, the Respondent illegally declared the roan accounts as NpA and issued demand notice dt'76'o3 '2023' After receipt of the said notice, the Appricant herein paid substantial amounts towards the loan accounts and also submitted objections dt.31.03.2023. Without giving any reply, the Bank issued possession notice dt. 17. OS.2O23 to the Applicant. Thereafter, the Applicant filed a case vide CC No.27 /2O24 before the Consumer Forum, Warangal seeking insurance coverage, however, the same was dismissed with a direction to take steps before the appropriate forum. Thereafter,the Bank issued demand notice dt.16.O5.2O24 by classifying the loan account as NpA on 01.05.2024 and thereafter possession notice dt. 18.02.2024 and the said notices are served on the name of only one legal heir and not issued to the 2.d regar heir. In response to the said possession notice, the Applicant raised objections. Without giving reply, the Respondent straightaway initiated proceedings u/s l4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.CJM, Warangal and so, the said proceedings are not legal and valid. Hence the SA_
