were purchased in the names of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, they were acquired from the funds of the deceased and are, therefore, liable to be partitioned amongst all the legal heirs. The applicant submits that, as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to effectpartition despite repeated requests, she instituted O.S. No. 86 of 2O2O before the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seekingpartition and separatepossession of thejoint familyproperties, wherein the respondent bank has also been impleaded as aparty and the suit is pending adjudication. The applicant further contends that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, without the consent or knowledge of the otherco- sharers, created a mortgage over thejoint familyproperties in favour of the respondent bank, which ought not to have acceptedthe mortgage in respect of undividedjoint familyproperties. Itis further alleged that despite having knowledge of thepending partition suit, the respondent bankproceeded with the SARFAESIproceedings and issued the impugned auction notices without complying withthe mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the SecurityInterest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The applicant also contends that the respondent bank had already received substantialpaymentsand had granted time to Respondent No. 2 to arrange apurchaser forone of the secured assets butproceeded with theauction even before tlr'e expiry of the saidperiod. On thesegrounds, the applicant seeks i6 set aside the impugned SARFAESImeasures and consequential auctionproceedingsin respectof the SA scheduleproperties.
