Dismissed

Chandra Sinha v. Punjab National Bank

DRT22 Jun 2026SA/231/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant claimed she was an aggrieved coparcener illegally dispossessed and auctioned properties by the bank and borrower without her consent. The court dismissed the application due to non-joinder of necessary parties (other coparceners) and lack of conclusive proof regarding death dates and inheritance rights, holding that rights could not be adjudicated without impleading all shareholders.

What did the court decide?

Application SA 231 of 2022 dismissed as it suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and lack of evidence regarding succession.

Chandra Sinha versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

DRT. PATNA

SA 231 of 2022 IJI

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶5

P'esiding Officer : Shri Kaust\a\enc\raYadav

¶6

SA- 231 of 2022

¶7

Chanda Sinha, W/o Haripada Sinha, R/o – Khaira Kandi. p.0 BeniYa Gram, P.S. – Farakka, District - Mursidabad, West Bengal

¶8

,Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road Bata Chowk, First Floor, Regional Office Katihar.

¶11

The Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Sastra Division, Dr Rajendra Prasad Road Bata Chowk. First Floor, Circle Office Katihar Email cs8261(a)pnb.co.in.

¶12

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Katihar Branch, Dr Rajendra Prasad Road Bata Chowk, Katihar.

¶13

Sujit Kumar, S/o Late Bageswar Lal Mahto, At – Mohalla Gamitola, P.S. Katihar, District – Katihar – 854105.

¶14

Yash Chaudhary. S/o Vivekanand Chaudhary, R/o Near – Pole Factory, Barmasiya, Katihar. (auction purchaser)

¶15

--respondents

¶16

Present :

¶17

FortheApplicants	: Sh. C.S.P. Sinha, Advocate
FortheRespondentBank	:Dr. Binod Bihari Sinha, Advocate
For the Auction Purchaser	: None

¶18

Dated: 22.06.2026

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the Demand Notice dated 22.01.2024 as well as Possession Notice dated 10.04.2024 issued in the matter

¶21

The brief fact of the case is that the applicant is neither borrower nor guarantor to the loan account in question. The applicant is an aggrieved

IdA#

DRT, PATN A

SA 231 of 2022 IJI

person and claiming coparcener of the property in question. The loan account in question was availed by the respondent no.4, borrower availed as Term Loan facility to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondent bank. Due to default in repayment of outstanding dues of the bank, the accounts were classified as. In order to recover the outstanding dues, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESt action against the borrowers and guarantors by issuing Demand Notice dated 25.07.2011 u/s 13(2) of the act calling upon the borrowers to make the payment of outstanding dues. Thereafter, the respondent took possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 07.12.2012 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Further, the property was put on auction sale by issuing auction sale notice dated 14.07.2021 fixing the date of auction sale on 12.08.2021. Accordingly, property was auctioned on 12.08.2021 to the respondent no.5 herein being successful bidder. Further, Sale Certificate has also been issued in favour of auction purchasers. Further. the respondent bank proceeded under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for physical possession of the property in question. Accordingly, the date of physical possession was fixed as 28.06.2022 by the District Magistrate. Aggrieved from the action of physical possession, the present SA has been filed by the applicant.

¶27

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel of applicant that the present applicant is neither borrower nor guarantor to the loan account in question. She is an aggrieved party being coparcener in the property in question. The respondent no. 4, borrower is full brother of the applicant and availed loan facilities from the respondent bank and to secure the loan facility mortgaged the ancestral property. The subject property is ancestral property by virtue of law of inheritance and there are three coparceners. Out of three coparceners, the present applicant is one of the coparceners being daughter of Bageshwar Lal Mahto. The property consists of three Kattha of land, out of which 2.5 Kattha land has been mortgaged by the borrower while he has only 1/3 share i.e. 1 kattha of land. This fact has not been disclosed by the borroaw£rppfore the bank

DRT, PATN A

SA 231 of 2022 IJI

and mortgaged 2.5 Kattha. The respondent bank, without investigating such a fact. created an equitable mortgage of the subject property and further auction sold the property including the share of the applicant. No notice has been served upon the applicant. The applicant came to know when the District Magistrate passed an order for sealing the house on 28.06.2022 and also came to know the respondent bank had auctioned the property. The mother of the borrower as well as applicant was guarantor to the loan account in question who died on 04.03.2018 but without notice to the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor, the property has been auctioned..

¶32

zi. On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent bank submits that respondent no. 4 Sujit Kumar availed financial assistance from the Bank but failed to pay the dues, hence the account was cLassified as NPA on 31.03.2008. Subsequently, the respondent bank issued demand notice dated 25.07.2011 calling upon borrow to make payment of outstanding dues followed by the Possession Notice dated 07.12.2012 issued under section 13(4) of the Act. Aggrieved from the Possession Notice, the borrower herein respondent no.4 filed SARFAESI Application bearing SA 49/2013 before this Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2013. Thereafter, the respondent bank proceeded for auction sale of the property by issuance of Sale Notice dated 17.07.2019 and subsequent thereafter including 16.06.2021, 08.07.2021 and 14.07.2021. In pursuance of the sale notice dated 14.07.2021, property was auctioned on 12.08.2021 to the respondent no.5 being successful bidder for an amount of Rs.59,49,100/-. On receipt of the entire auction amount, Sale Certificate has been issued in favour of the auction purchaser. Thereafter, the borrower Sujit Kumar, respondent no.zi herein filed SA 152/2021 before this Tribunal which was dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2022. Before filing present SA, the applicant has also filed a Title case before the Ld. Civil Court Katihar bearing case no. 6 of 2022 which is pending. Present SA has been filed with collusion of the others to frustrate the recovery of the Bank and raising the dispute of

'7:@

DRT. PATN A

SA 231 of 2022 IJI

Title which is not maintainable.

¶38

1 have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶39

Despite service of notice upon auction purchaser appeared from the tracking report filed by applicant; none appeared on behalf of auction purchaser to contest the case.

¶40

It has been alleged by the applicant that the respondent no. 4, borrower mortgaged the ancestral property without consent of the applicant being one of the coparceners out of there. The subject property is ancestral property by virtue of law of inheritance and there are three t,oparceners. The borrower has only 1/3 share in the property but he has mortgaged the entire property. The respondent bank, without investigating such a fact, created an equitable mortgage of the subject property and further auction sold the property including the share of the applicant. No notice has been served upon the applicant. The mother of the borrower as well as applicant. was guarantor to the loan account in question who died on 04.03.2018 but without notIce to the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor, the property has been auctioned.

¶41

On perusal of records it appears that admittedly there is other coparcener namely Krishna Mahto as referred in the SARFAESI Application as 'Family Tree’ and 'qfiaTt@ @, annexed as annexure 1, page 17 of the application. The basis of claim by the applicant is inheritance as coparcener, being daughters of Bageshwar Lal Mahto. All other brothers and sisters are also necessary parties. As such application suffers the defect of non- joinder of necessary party Krishna Mahto. The rights and share of the applicant cannot be decided and adjudicated without impleadtng all of the shareholders as coparceners.

¶42

Further, the applicant has mentioned the name of her mother as Urrnila De,i in SARFAESI Application while the 'qTftaTt@ @, annexed as annexure I, page 17 shows Urmila Devi as a daughter of Late Dayalal

SA 231 of 2022 IJI

DRT, PATN A

Mahto i.e. Urmila Devi is sister of Bageshwar Lal Mahto. Furthermore, the applicant in para 21 stated that her mother Urmila Devi died on 04.03.2018 and to substantiate her argument she annexed the death certificate as annexure -4, page 32 which indicates the death certificate of one (,irja Devi. The applicant failed to disclose the relation of Late Girja Devi in the present matter. The date of death of the applicant's father has also not been proved by filing the cogent evidence to show whether the father of the applicant died after the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act to claim the rights of the applicant.

¶47

So far the service of notice upon the present applicant is concerned since she is neither borrower nor guarantor in the loan account in question; therefore, there is no occasion to serve the notice upon her by the respondent bank. In such circumstances there is no infirmity on the part of the respondent in SARFAESI action.

¶48

In view of the above discussion, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The application SA 231 of 2022, is dismissed.

A/
,n/

£_+-'

[KaushalendraYadav]

Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶55

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 22ND Day of June, 2026. y2r/L

¶56

y2r/L vC ._.##- A* [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer

¶57

Debts Recovery Tribunal. Patna

Chandra Sinha v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Sinha v. Punjab National Bank

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

Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India) versus Ajay Attri (Prop M/S Guru Traders)

State Bank of India versus Yogesh Gupta

Union Bank of India versus Vandana Sukhija and Others

M/S Hotel Ocimum Palace versus Punjab National Bank

Shailendra Kumar versus Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank

State Bank of India versus Shri Binod Thocker