Dismissed

Purnima Malik v. Aavas financers limited

DRT19 Jun 2026SA/228/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI interim order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's prayer to restrain the recovery agent from taking possession of a mortgaged flat. The Tribunal found prima facie that the petitioner's charge was prior to the applicant's sale, as the original title deeds were deposited with the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The interim prayer of the applicant to restrain the court receiver from taking physical possession of the property was dismissed.

Purnima Malik versus Aavas financers limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Debts Recovety Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

S.A.No. 22812026 PURNIMA MALIK VS. AAVAS FINANCERS LTD.

¶3

19.06.2026 Item no.1

¶4

Present: Shri Himanshu Sharma, counsel for applicant. Shri Yuvraj Singh, counsel and Shri Ashwani Shahi, counsel for respondent EI.

¶5

Matter is taken through VC/Hybrid mode.

¶6

The Ld. Counsel for the S.applicant submitted that the applicant has^purchased the subject^property by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed dated^15.03.2018 executed by Smt. Mohini in favour of the applicant and the subject propefi was financed through Muthoot Homefin (India) Limited in March 2018 and applicant^is ' regularly paying the installments. The applicant has regularly pdid the loan instalments and continuously remain in^possession of the subject^property. It^is submitted that the applicant is neither a borrower nor guarantor/ mortgagor nor a party to any transaction with Respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the applicant came to know that respondent No. t has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against Respondent No. 3, Mr. Prosenjit Chowdhury, in relation to a loan transaction. It is submitted that the respondent No. 3 and his family members reside in a separate and distinct flat bearing Flat No. 405 situated adjacent to the applicant's flat no. 401 on the same floor. It is submitted that due to typographical mistake the flat no. 401 of the applicant has been mentioned in the order passed by the Ld. CJM. Therefore, request is made that the Court Receiver/respondent FI may be restrained from takiryg_ pfysical^possession of the sA

¶7

property in question bearing Flat No. 401,^Foutth Floor, A-1/3, Khasra No. 488/1,^{Molarband Village,} Near Pipalwala Shani Mandir,^{Badarpur,New Delhi-} L10044 on 19.06.2026.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel for respondent^{FI vehemently} opposed^granting any interim^{relief to the applicant} stating that this shall adversely^{affect the legitimate} recovery of the respondent FI. It is^{fur$ersubmitted} that respondent no.3 along with other^co-borrcwers has availed a loan facility from the^{respondentFI on} 15.09.2017 and executed loan documents^{in favour of} respondent FI and mortgaged the subject^propertyin favour of the respondent FI. It is submitted^{that the} charge of the respondent FI^{has also been registered} with CERSAI in the^year 2017 and the applicant^has purchased the subject property in the year 2018. It is submitted that notice under Section^{13(2) and 13(4) of} the SARFAESI Act were also^{pasted on the same} property. It is submitted that the subject^propefi has duly been mortgaged with the respondent^{FI in the} year 20L7, therefore, respondent FI has every right to proceed-against the subject propefi to recovery its dues and applicant is not entitled for any interim^relief from this Tribunal.

¶9

Heard the Ld. Counsels of both the^partiesand perused the record.

¶10

The main contention of the^{Ld. counselof the} applicant is that he is neither the borrower^{nor the} guarantor of the loan. It is submitted that the applicant is the owner of the subject^properfy and^has purchased the property U_-1ttue of sale deed dated sAl

¶11

15.03.2018 o(ecuted by Smt.^{Mohiniin favour of the} applicant. It is submitted that the^{applicantis residing} in the said flat from Sre date of^{purchase. On the other} hand the Ld. counsel of the respondent^{has submitted} that the borrower has mortgaged the^{property with the} respondent FI on 15.09.20L7 and^{CERSAI registration} has already been done on the^propetty. It^{is submitted} that the charge of the respondent^{FI is prior to the sale} in favour of the applicant. Therefore, the^applicant cannot claim any right over the^{propefi.Fromperusal} of the record it is clear that the original^Utle deed^has been deposited with the respondent FI by^the borrower of the loan and the charge of the^respondent FI is prior to the applicant. The applicant^has not^filed the original title deeds of erstwhile owner^Mohini regarding the subject^{propefty.Therefore, prima facie} case does not appear in favour of applicant and the interim^prayer of the applicant is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Order

¶13

The interim prayer of the applicant is^hereby dismissed.

¶14

It is hereby made clear that all the above conclusions are merely^prima facie conclusion and will^{have no} bearing at the time of flnal disposal of the^{present SA.} The SA will be decided in accordance with law after marshalling of the evidence filed by both the^parties.

¶15

Matter be listed on 19.08.2026 before Registrar for compleUon of^pleadings.

¶16

-t"fi (susHrL ruifin rinsrocr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Purnima Malik v. Aavas financers limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purnima Malik v. Aavas financers 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