Dismissed

Mrs Aisha Tabassum v. Indostar Capital Finance Limited

DRT15 Apr 2026SA/73/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissed the applicant's application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The applicant, claiming a 1/9th share in the property and not being a borrower, challenged the recovery creditor's possession notice and Section 14 proceedings. The Tribunal held the applicant lacked locus standi as the DRT cannot adjudicate title.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of. No order as to costs.

Mrs Aisha Tabassum versus Indostar Capital Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATEDTHISTHE 1sTH DAYOFAPRIL, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

sA.No.73./2024

¶5

Between :

¶6

Mrs. Aisha Tabassum, W/o. Late Mazher Ahmed Khan, Aged about 55^years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 12-2-8221B/t4 Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Indostar Capital Finance Limited, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Situated at Unit No. 505, Str'^Floor, Corporate Avenue, wing² / E, Andheri - Ghatkopar Link^Road, Chakala, Andheri^{(East) Mumbai} -^{400 093}

¶9

Also at - 3rd Floor, Bridge^{Tarang Towers,} Mebaz, Kundan Bagh, BegumPet, Hyderabad, T.S - 50O 016

¶10

Mohd. Muzammil Hussain @^Farooq, Aged about 55^years, S/o. Mohd. Maqbool Hussain, R/o. H.No. ll-4-616 I L,^Bazarg}rat, Hyderabad - 5O0 004.

¶11

J. Mrs. Khatija Anjum, W/o. Mohd. Abdul^RaufBasheer, Aged about 51years,^{Occ. Household,} R/o. H.No. ll-4-616 I L,^Bazargl:,at, Hyderabad - 5OO OO4

¶12

Mrs. Zahra Tasneem, W/o. Mohd. Badruddin, Aged about 49^{years, Occ. Household,}

¶13

R/o. H.No. ll-4-616 I l, Bazargtrat, Hyderabad - 5OO 004

¶14

Mrs. Azra Tanveer Saba, W/o. Mohd. Sujad Hussain, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 1 1 - 4-616 / I, Bazarg}rat, Hyderabad - 500 OO4

¶15

Mr. Mohd. Khaja Hussain @ Mohd. I(haja Ahmed Hussain, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner, R/o. H.No. ll-4-616ll, Bazarghat, Hyderabad - 500 004

¶16

Mrs. Shabana Sultana, W /o. Zaki Ahmed, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No. I l-4-616 I l, Baz,argltat, Hyderabad - 50O 004

¶17

Asfia Ghouri, W/o. Mohd. Khaja Ahmed Hussain Occ. Household, R/o. H.No. ll-4-616, Near Denti Citi Dental Hospital, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004.

¶18

Denti Citi and Dental Hospital and Implant Centre, Situated at H.No. 11-4-6L6lL 12, AC Guards, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad, Telangana - 50O 0O4

¶19

Respondents

¶20

Counsel for the Applicant

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Respondents No.2 to 9

¶22

Si D. Ragharrulu Si C.Vishruanath Exparte

¶23

11.03.2026 15.04.2025 15.04.2026

¶24

, 5 APR 2O2E
'arda
\(F

¶25

-:ORDER:.

¶26

This application is filed by the Applicant u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the Possession notice dt.30.07.2o24 and also the proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 1 for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner pursuant to the orders of Ld.XII Addl.CJM, Nampally, Hyderabad in Cr1.M.P.No.3424124 and to declare the same as illegal and void.

¶27

The averments made in the application, in brief, are that:

¶28

The Applicant is neither borrower nor guarantor but a 3ra party and one of the owner and possessor of the SA schedule property. The schedule property belongs to the father of the Applicant and Respondents No.2 to 7 are siblings of Dr. Mohd. Muqbool Hussain who got the schedule property through his father Late Khaja Hussain. Subsequently, the entire properties of Late Khaja Hussain were partitioned as per his wishes among his children and the schedule property fall to the share of Dr.Mohd.Maqhool Hussain. A11 the title documents including the partition deed etc. are in possession of the Respondent No.2 who is the elder of the all brothers and sisters. Subsequent to the death of late Dr.Maqhool Hussain, the Respondents No.2 to 7 herein became co-owners of the application schedule property and the Applicant is entitled to llgth share of the entire property. Respondents No.2 to 6 are not deliberately partitioning the schedule property and pretending to be the only owners of the schedule property as the Applicant is away from India. So the Applicant filed O.S No.138/2002 on the file of the Hon'ble IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil

¶29

laSomn

¶30

and the same was partly decreed in respect of the No.2 and dismissed in respect of the schedule dt.24.Ol.2OO6. Aggrieved by the said order, the No.148/2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and the Hon'ble High Court passed an .07.2006 in respect of the schedule property 3

¶31

granting interim injunction until further orders and the said cccA is pending adjudication. While things stood thus, the Applicant was shocked to know that the Respondent No.1 issued possession notice dt.3o.ol.2024 for recovery of outstanding dues from the Respondents No.6,8&9. The l"t Respondent has to no right to proceed against the schedule property to recover the dues and the lst Respondent granted loan facilities to the Respondents No.6,g&9 in collusion with other Respondents without proper investigation of titre deeds. During the pendency of the SA, the lst Respondent proceeded further and issued notice dt.21'02.2023 through advocate commissioner as per the orders of Ld.XII Addl.CJM,Nampally, Hyderabad for taking physical possession of the schedule property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2OO2 by suppressing the pendency of the present SA and material facts and so the said proceedings are not legal. Hence the SA.

¶32

¶33

The lst Respondent filed their Reply denying all the adverse allegations made in the SA and contended that the Appticant herein is a 3rd party to the proceedings initiated by the lst Respondent and she does not have any right, title or interest over the schedule property. The pendency of the appeal before the Hon,ble high Court being CCCA No. 148/2006 was suppressed by the Applicant and the Respondent No.6 to the lst Respondent and the lst Respondent is not a part5r to the said Appeal and as such, the same is not binding on the lst Respondent and the present proceedings were initiated at tlle behest of the Respondent No.6 with an intention to evade the legally enforceable claim of the lst Respondent. This Hon,ble Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to declare the mortgage created in favour of the l "t Respondent by the Respondent No.6 in respect ofthe schedule property is not vested with the civil court and the Applicant is not 1st Respondent further submitted that Resu6rttEnt No. the Respondents No.8&9 are as cofacilities from the lst Respondent and :"ffffir$:ugffiffl ted the title documents in respect of W**#

¶34

::.. -._

¶35

the schedule property and as the Respondents No.6,8&9 defaulted in repayment of said loan facilities, the lst Respondent classified the loan account as NPA on O3.10.2023 and initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act,2OO2. Thereafter, the lst Respondent issued demand notice dt.06.1O.2O23 and possession notice dt.so.Ol.2024 and the said notices were duly served on the borrowers and the said possession notice was published in two daily newspapers. Thereafter, the lst Respondent initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002 for taking physical possession of the schedule property pursuant to the orders of Id.XII Addl.CJM, Nampally, Hyderabad and thus there are no violations. The Applicant had not taken any steps to communicate the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court to the concerned Sub-Registrar to keep the property in the^prohibited list and avoid the alienation or the creation of interest in respect of the schedule^property. As such, the Applicant is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the SA.

¶36

Heard ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the l"t Respondent whereas Respondents No.2 to 9 remained exparte.

¶37

Now the points that arise for consideration are

¶38

ulether tlrc Applicant is hauing loans-standi to^challengetLe proceedirlgs initiated by tlrc 1st Respondent under the^prouisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 in resPect of tte scledule^propertg?

¶39

ii. To ulmt relief ?

¶40

Potnt.ilIo.(il:-

¶41

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. the 1"t-l ted their respective versions as 15 APB

¶42

7.. Even as per the version of the Applicant, she^{is neither a borrowernor a} mortgagor to the proceedings initiated by the^{lst Respondentagainst the} schedule property but she is the allegedly having^only 1/9m shareⁱⁿ the schedule property. But however, she contended that^{she filed a suit} in O.S.No. 13812006 before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad^seeking partition of the schedule property and the said OS was dismissed in respect of the schedule property as admitted by her. Challenging^{the said} impugned order dt.24.01.2026^passed in O.S.138/2006,^{the Applicant} herein filed CCCA No. 148 l2006 before the Hon'ble^{High Court of Andhra} Pradesh and Telangana and the Hon'lcle^{High Court passed interimorder} dt.06.07.2006 granting interim injunction in^{respectof the schedule} property till further orders. But however, the Applicant has not taken any steps to communicate the said interim order^{passed by the Hon'ble High} Court to the concerned Sub-Registrar to^{keep the property in the} prohibited list and avoid the alienation or the creation of interestⁱⁿ respect of the schedule^property.

¶43

The Applicant challenged the^{proceedingsinitiatedby the 1"t Respondent} in respect of the schedule^property u/s^{14 of the SARFAESIAct,2OO2for} taking physical^possession of the schedule^{propertyby contendingthat the} 1"t Respondent has not followed the^{procedure as contemplatedunder the} provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder.^Whereas the l"t Respondent submitted that^{theyhaveduly followed the procedure} in issuing all the statutory notices to the^{borrowersi.e. Respondents} No.6,8&9 and also in^proceeding u/s^{14 of the SARFAESIAct, 2002 for} taking physical possession ofthe secured^{asset as the borrowers who are} Respondents No.6,8&9 herein, created^{mortgage in respect of the schedule} property by d itle^{deeds in favour of the 1st Respondentin security} to the by them. To substantiate their^contentions, the lst documents along with the Reply.^{But the} lst R Spgndent arSed thatt'hi Applicant has no right or title over^the entitled to challenge the^proceedings ,b la p.oJ"$yffiffi "".fi t the schedule^property. re"{ry

¶44

In support of their connections, Ld. counsel^{for the 1st Respondentplaced} his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme^Court ln Central^Bank of India & others Vs.Smt.Prabha Jaln & others^{inCtvtl Appeal} No,1876/2O76 and the relevant^portionof the^{judgement is extracted}

¶45

below:

¶46

From Section 17, it is clear that^{it is onlg the Tribunal that has} tle^juisdiction to determine utLether^{' ang of the measures referred} to in sub-section⁽⁴⁾ of 13 taken^{bg the seanredcreditor' are in} acardance roith the Act and^{Rules tlereunder.}

¶47

The Plaintiff in her suit^hrl,spraged for^{3 reliefs:}

¶48

a) The first relief is^{in relation to a saledeed exeanted bg Sumer} Chand Jain in fauour of^{ParmeshutarDas Prajapati.}

¶49

b) The second relief is in^{relation to a mortgage deedexeanted bg} Pramod Jaininfauour of^{the Bank.}

¶50

c) The third retief is for^{being handouerouerlhe possession of the} suit property.

¶51

So far as the first^{and second reliefs are concerned, theg are} not in relation to anA measures^{takenbg tle seanredcreditor under} Section 13(4) of the^{SARFAESIAcfl Rather,th.eg are reliefs in} relation to the actions taken^{pior to tte seanred creditor stepping} into picture and taell^pior to^{tle seanred creditor inuokingtle} prouisions of SARFAESI Act.

¶52

TLerefore, tle^{Tlibunat wouldhaue no jurisdiction under} Section 17 of the SARFAESIAcT^{to grantthe declarahons sought in}

¶53

tlw first and second^reliefs.

¶54

,6\ ltp

¶55

il1,, 1sApffi;", "".$rr-$

¶56

;^{the SARFAESfAct is enacted essentlallg to}

¶57

speedg nrchanlslrz Jor^{recotery of debts bg banks} lnstitutions. The SARFAESI^{Act has not been} mechanlsm Jor adiudicatlng^{upon the} or to d.etermlne the^{questionsoJ tttle} 7

¶58

JlnaiJ,g.^{The DRT does not haw} JurtsdlctTon^{to grant o} declaratlon ulth respect to the nortgage^{deed. or tlvsale} deed as sought W t v Platntiff.^The Jurtsdtctilon^{to declare} a sale d.eed or a mortgage deed belng lllegal^{7s rnsted ulth} tlu cil/,l court under Section 9 of^{the Code of Clttll Procedure.} Tlerefore, the ctrttl court ho,s tlv Jurlsdlctlon^to Jlnallg adJud.lcate upon the tlrst tuo rellefs.

¶59

So, in view of the above^{circumstancesand the ratio relied by the lst} Respondent supra, I am^{of the opinion that the Applicant,being a 3rd} party, is not entitled to challenge^{the proceedings initiated by the 1"t} Respondent in respect^{of the schedule propertyunder the provisions} of SARFAESI Act,2OO2.^{This Tribunalis not competent to decide the} alleged title of the Applicant^{in respectof the schedulepropertyand the} Applicant has to approach^{the competent civil court to get declaration} of the title of any^{particularproperty.So withoutgetting any declaration} of the alleged title of the^{Applicant in respect of the scheduleproperty,} she cannot challenge^{the proceedingsinitiatedby the lst Respondent in} respect of the schedule^{propertyunder the provisions of SARFASI Act,} 2OO2 and Rules made^thereunder.

¶60

Potnt No.ltl)t

¶61

So, considering all the^{circumstances, I am of the opinion that the} Applicant is not entitled^{to any reliefas she has no locus-standito} challenge the^{proceedingsinitiated by the l"t Respondentin respectof} the schedule^{propertyunder the provisionsof SARFAESIAct,2002and} Rules made thereunder.^{so, I see no ground warrantinginterference of} this Tribunal with the^{proceedingsinitiated by the 1"t Respondentfor} possession of the schedule^{property u/s 14 of the} Accordingly, this^point is^{answered in favour of} d against the Applicant.