guarantor Dharmendra Prasad who expired on 20.11.2016. The applicant has 1/3 share in the property of deceased Dharmendra Prasad. Late Dharmendra Prasad left behind Smt. Poonam Kumar, wife, Sri Rahul Ranjan, Son (Borrower) and Satish Kumar, Son (present applicant). The applicant had also filed a partition suit No. 34/2002 before the appropriate court on 03.02.2022. Despite having knowledge of the death of Dharmendra Prasad, the respondent bank without serving notice to the legal heirs auction sold the property on 17.05.2022 and is now trying to take physical possession of the property. The knowledge of death to the bank is evident from 0A 252/2020 filed by respondent bank incorporating the legal heirs of deceased Dharrnendra Prasad. The present applicant has been wrongly made party in the name of Sonu Kumar instead of Satish Kumar as defendant no.3. Apart from this the respondent bank in its 0A used the words Ex-Guarantor for Dharmendra Prasad and regarding applicant clearly stated in para 5 (c) of 0A that the defendant no.3 is legal heir. Further, the borrower was granted additional loan on 29.03.2019 while the mortgagor died on 20.11.2016. Hence, at that point of time no documents can be executed by the deceased guarantor. The documents might have been executed by the borrower only. Therefore, the loan granted after death of the guarantor to the borrower cannot be recovered from all the legal heirs. The respondent bank also did not disclose the details of the auction purchaser despite filing its counter affidavit so that the auction purchaser could not be impleaded in the matter. The sale notice is also defective as the amount due has been as Rs.8,80,71,589.11 whereas in words it has been mentioned as Rupees eighty eight lacs seventy one thousand five hundred eighty nine and paise eleven only. The applicant has no objection if the bank sells the property leaving the share of the applicant.
