Dismissed

Mr Angani Akhil v. Shriram Finance Limited

DRT30 Jun 2026SA/217/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application for relief under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was dismissed as not maintainable. The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to decide title disputes or grant declarations, which are matters for civil courts under Section 9 of the CPC, especially since a suit was already pending.

What did the court decide?

The single applicant was dismissed as the application was not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.

Mr Angani Akhil versus Shriram Finance Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

SA.No.217,/2024

¶5

Mr.Angani Akhil, S/o Angani Durgender, Aged 24 years, Occ:Pvt. employee, R/o H.No. 1-6-38, Fathenagar Locality, Medak town, Presently residing at C/o late A. Gopal, H.No.6-51/ 10, Madhura Nagar, Nagaram, Hyderabad.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Shriram Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Officer Situated at Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

Mr.Angani Durgender, S/o Angani Malaliah, aged 55 years, Occ:self employee, . R/o H.No. 1-6-38, Fathenagar Locality, Medak town & Municipality, Medak District.

¶10

Mrs.G.Sunanda @ Angani Sunnda, W/o Angani Durgender, D/o Laxmaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ:self employee, R/o H.No. 1-6-38, Fathenagar Locality, Medak town & Municipality, Medak District

¶11

th Goud, Goud, Agrd^{5+ yia,is,} OE empioyee, R/o H.Nd,i:-2-752 Amberpet, bad-SOO 013. . .. Respondents

¶12

: Si D. Roghauulu : Sri M.Indrasen : Exparte

¶13

Reserued on :08.05.2026 Pronounced on : 30.06.2026 Uploaded on :30.06.2026

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This application is filed by the Applicant^{u/s. 17 of the SARFAESIAct,} 2002, challenging the^{proceedings initiated by ths 1"t Respondent for} taking physical^possession of the^{application schedule propertythrough} Advocate commissioner^pursuant to the orders^{of Ld.CJM, Medak in} Crl.M.P.No.08 124 and also for declaration of^{the mortgagecreated by} the Respondent No.2 in favour of^{the RespondentNo. 1 in respect ofthe} schedule property is not in accordance^with the^{law of Hindu Minority} and Guardianship Act.

¶16

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

¶17

The Applicant is neither a borrower^{nor a guarantor and a 3'd party to} proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent. The Applicant is^claiming right over the schedule^property as a^{minoras on the date of alleged} gift settlement deed bearing document No.2l4ll2Ol0^{dt.31.07.201o.} The Applicant is the natural son^{of RespondentNo.2 and Respondent} No.2 was not looking after the welfare of the^{Applicantand his mother} and so, the grandfather of the Applicant^{namedAnganiMallaih, out of} his savings, purchased the schedule^{property in the name of the} Applicant herein from its original^{vendor Smt'P.Pushpavathiunder a} Regd. sale deed No.705/2005 dt. 13.04.2005^{by placing the mother of} : ,'';tt dr' :-ffiKntnamedSmt'AnganiGeethaasguardiansincethe'''1ry,tt'"iqoNu.^{minor at the time ol purchase of the schedule property'} @$reafterl Jh$.Brandfather^{of the Applicant erectedan AC sheet room} : extent in the schedule^{property. In the year 2010, the} i,-, : I n 'flfil"trlt' l' i father of thts" pplicant i.e. Respondent No.2 herein influenced^the Applicant for execution of gift settlement^{deed for} ''f,""4'S.{r- .,Iffi of RCC building in the schedule^{property and accordingly,}

¶18

the mother of the Applicant executed Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the Respondent No.2 vide Regd. Gift settlement deed No.2141 l2OlO dt.31.07.2010 without the consent of the Applicant. Meanwhile, mother of Applicant died on 3l.lO.2O2O due to severe ill-health and thereafter, the Respondent No.2 forcibly necked out the Applicant from the house. Thereafter, the Applicant constrained to file suit vide O.S.No.484/23 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Jr.Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First lass, Medak. Meanwhile, it came to the knowledge of the Applicant that Respondent No.3 herein obtained loan from the l"t Respondent for which, Respondents No.2 to 4 stood as guarantors and the Respondent No.2 herein created mortgage in respect of the schedule property. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 proceeded u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Acl, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through advocate commissioner. Respondent No.2 herein is not having any right over the property to mortgage the same in favour of the lst Respondent. The l"t Respondent failed to serve demand notice and possession notice to the Applicant and the said possession notice was not published in two leading newspapers and also not affixed on the schedule property. So, the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent against the schedule property are illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence the SA.

¶19

The 1.t Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the case of the Applicant in this SA is that his grandfather by name Angani Mallaiah has initially entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the application schedule property w1 mt.Pushpavathi but the Applicant has not filed copy of the dt.01.12. 1999 to prove the sahe. However, the

¶20

1"'Appliednt copy ofthe sale deed No.7O5l2005 dt. 13.04.2005 tn

¶21

. ! ,i

¶22

.r respebt application schedule property showing that hs ld the scheduie property to the Applicant i.e. Master

¶23

.,^{Angani Akhil,} A Durgender, aged 11 years, minor under mother Smt.Angani Geetha, W/o Angani Durgender

¶24

that means the schedule^{property waspurchased in the nameof the} Applicant while he was^{minor. But the 1"t Respondentcontended that} Respondent No.3 herein^{Mrs.G.Sunanda W/o Angani Durgender} availed business expansion/development^{loan of Rs.40lakhs from the} l"t Respondent and Respondent^{No.2 hereincreated mortgagein} respect of three^{properties mentioned below by deposit of title deeds:}

¶25

Schedule property No. 1 bears^{municipal No. 1-6-39/1 consisting of} 1894.50sft. or 210.50 sq.yds.^{or 176 sq.metershaving an area of open} land admeasuring 210.5O sq.Yds.

¶26

Schedule^property No.2^{is municipalNo' 1-6-38/1 AC sheet builtup} area of 302.25 sq.ft or^{33.58 sq.ysand open placeconsisting of 1508} sq.ft. or 168.03 sq.yds both totalling^{to 201.61sq.yds.}

¶27

Schedule property No.3 bears^{MunicipalNo.1-6-39/1 is Ac.sheet} built up area of 330.12 sq.ft.^{or 36.68 sq.yds and open place consisting} of 1564.sq.ft. or 145.37 sq.mts.^{both totalling to 1894.5O sq.ft or 210.50} sq.yds.

¶28

The Applicant has raised dispute in^{respect of the property having} Municipal No.1-6-38 on land admeasuring^{201.61 sq.yds.The said} property is transferred by sale deed No.705/2005^{dt.13.04'2005by} Smt.Pushpavathi to Master Angani Akhil^{and the same property is} gifted by Smt.Geetha to Angani Durgender^{vide document} No.2l41l2Ol0. The municipal^{numbers of the mortgaged properties} are different from H.No.^{1-6-38 which is claimed by the Applicant' The} borrower is Respondent No.3 and^{she arrangedthree properties} .^{tbrougll Respondent No.2. The Applicant has raised the dispute for the} t" tG btb4lllC.Municipal No.1-6-38 in O.S.No.484123^{before the} * irif ., .igt; li .. .lir*gq, Medak , which :- rr..^-^-! is different .-^-^from +1-^ ^^-+^^-^A^{the mortgaged} Snpqfijlli4r6n^{vifw of the default committed by the borrower, the loan} I, . t" !, account was de aled as NPA on 08.O1.2018^{as per the RBI guidelines.} fr.q the lr$'.Re'#ondent initiated^{proceedings underthe SARFESI} ed demand notice and^{possessionnotice to the}

¶29

borrower and guarantors by duly following the procedure. Thereafter, the 1^st Respondent proceeded further u/ s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking physical possession of the mortgaged properties pursuant to the orders of Ld. CJM, Medak and challenging the same, the Applicant filed the present SA. Accordingly, ths 1"t Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶30

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the 1st Respondent whereas Respondents No.2 to 4 remained exparte. perused the material brought on record.

¶31

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶32

whether the Applicant is hauing ang locus-standi to challenge the SARFAESIpTo ceedings initiated by the 1"t Respondent includ.ing the

¶33

proceedings u/s 14 of the Act for taking phgsical possession of the schedule property?

¶34

ii. To what relief?

¶35

Point .t\Io.(i):-

¶36

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

¶37

is neither a by the 1st

¶38

Applicant is

¶39

,. claimine that his r by name Anagani Mallaiah purchased the -^{.3 0 .luH ?fm '}

¶40

'.4 schedule property e name of the Applicant who was eleven years old t.Pushpavathi W/o Ramalingam on 13.04.2005

¶41

;**w

¶42

Sm:$9

¶43

under the^guardianship of^{his mother Smt'Anagani Geetha W/o} Durgender. Thereafter,^{his motherexecuted Regd.Giftsettlement Deed} vide document No.2l4ll2o1o^{dt.31.07.2010in favourof A.Durgender,} Respondent No.2^{herein when the Applicant was a minor and without} obtaining any^{permission from the competent court of law'}

¶44

But as per the contentions of the^{l"tRespondent, itis clear that} No.3 herein i.e.^{Smt.G.SunandaW/o Angani Durgender} Respondent availed loan facilities from the l"t^{Respondent and Respondents No'2&4} herein stood as^{guarantors to the said loan facility and Respondent No'2} created mortgage against^{threeproperties to secure the repayment of said} 1oan. Subsequently, the^{borrower committed default and so, the lst} Respondent initiated^{proceedingsunder the provisions of SARFAESIAct,} 2OO2 andissued demand^{notice and possession notice to the Respondents} No.2 to 4 as^per the^{contemplated procedure' Thereafter, the 1't} Respondentproceededu/s14oftheSARFAESIAct,2002fortaking physical possession of the^{mortgagedproperties pursuantto the orders of} Ld.CJM,Medak through^{advocatecommissioner. However,the application} schedule property bearing^{Municipal No' 1-6-38 to anextent of} 20l.6lsq.yds.againstwhich,theApplicantisclaimingrightbyvirtueof the Gift settlement^{Deed dt. 13.04.2005 is different from one of the} mortgaged^{properties againstwhich, the 1st Respondent has proceededfor} takingphysicalpossessionu/s14oftheAct,2OO2'"fheextentand municipal number^{of the applicationschedule propertyand the property} mortgaged by the^{Respondent No.2 i.e. A.Durgenderin favour of the l"t} Regpondent are different^{properties as per the description and extent of} 1l-qh-e,$irid^qa$- r',t!'\^{sar the Applicant cannotchallengethe proceedingsinitiated} ,. .-.. ., by rhb.irf*^{R$qgildentagainst the mortgagedproperry claiming right over} ,^'th. =ii*.^uy "itSr[.r .\l^{the atleged Sale Deed dt'13'04'2005 purchased} i Silr,,l.mffi r"tnt ip"^{the name of the Applicant when he was minor and} \ -..^{the Apptica",, Uu-t/[a3rd party, cannotcontend that the I'r Respondent} t., -, -'li .S .t r7 r^rr^,.,^r +L',,,;i,,.3+",;i;;ffi.,RS notices to the Applicant^{and not followedthe} 6ontemplated under the^{provisionsof SARFAESI Act,}

¶45

2OO2 and Rules made thereunder. Whereas the 1"t Respondent contended that they have issued demand notice and possession notice to the borrower and guarantors i.e. Respondents No.2 to 4 herein by duly following the procedure. Therefore, the Applicant has no iocus-standi to challenge the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the l st Respondent against the mortgaged properties to recover the outstanding dues of Respondent No.3 herein. However, the Applicant has filed suit vide OS No.482123 on the file of Principal Jr.Civil Judge, Medak and the same is pending for adjudication and the Applicant can pursue his case in the said civil court whereas this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the title of any disputed property.

¶46

In this connection, I-d.counsel for the 1.t Respondent placed his reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex court between central Bank of Iadia & Anr. Vs. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors. in Ciwil Appeal No. 1826 of 2u^16, wherein it is held as follows:

¶47

"Tle DRT does not haue the jurisdiction to grant a declaration with respect to the mortgage deed or tLrc sale deed. The juisd_iction to declare sale deed or a mortgage deed being illegal is uested. uith the Ciuil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Ciuil procedure. In ,his SA, tLrc Applicant has raised a dispute and I is pending in Ciuil Court"

¶48

So ,^considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the SA is

¶49

not maintainable and liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction since the relief sought by the Applicant is beyond the scope of this Tribunal and t civil court can decide the same. So, I see no ground of this Tribunal with the proceedings initiated by

¶50

the for taking physical possession of the mortgaged lr6nffiEg/s^t the SARAFAESI Act, 20O2. Accordingly, this point is the lst Respondent and against the Applicant.

¶51

Point No.(ii)r

¶52

In the result, SA2l7 124^{is dismissed as not maintainable'}

¶53

Consequently,^{the Interlocutory Applications, pendingif any, shall stand} disposed of. No order^{as to costs.}

¶54

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

¶55

(Dictated to the P.S, transcibed^{bA her,conected',signed and pronouncedbg me in the open} court on this^the 30th^{dag of June' 2026)}

¶56

sd/(G. GOPI CHANDI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

(,rd - Eitl
%
t\tnfu,#

¶58

:"ffffi*
A$t.N{sffar
onr-l.Awea*gar

¶59

Mr Angani Akhil v. Shriram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Angani Akhil v. Shriram Finance Limited

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kanaparhi Ramanaiah versus Reliance Home Finance Limited

Dhamodhar molugu versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Yarra Srinivasa Rao versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Ssv Constructions

Smt Nallamasu Krishna Veni versus Home First Finance Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Saraswathi Powerloom Industry