191090090212015_10974c89343d744d1a2431b28913dbfd.pdf

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA 
          In-Charge Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad      
                           
Appeal No. 34 of 2017
(Arising out of S.A. No.125 of 2008 of DRT, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE SHRI R S KULHARI
CHAIRPERSON
Sri P. Vittal Reddy
Since deceased through 
1. Mrs.P. Vijaya Lakshmi
2. Ms.P. Sravanthi
3. Mrs. P. Manasa Reddy
H.No.17-9-175, Kurmaguda
Saidabad, Hyderabad
              
     
…  Appellants
-versus-
1. Chief Manager & Authorized Officer
Dena Bank, Bangalore Region
Regional Office, Sona Towers
1st Floor, 71, Millers Road
Bangalore-560052
2. The Manager, Recovery Cell
Dena Bank, R.P. Road
Secunderabad-500003
          …  Respondents
                           
Mr. Saibal Guha Roy
Learned Counsel for Appellants 
Mr.R.K. Ghosh
Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : JUDGEMENT : Dt.12.12.2019
1. The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 
11.02.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Hyderabad 
whereby the S.A. No.125 of 2008 filed by the appellant was 
dismissed.

2
2. It appears that the appellant purchased the property from one V. 
Pulla Reddy however, he could not get the mother title deed. 
Thereafter, the vendor again sold the property to one Farzana 
Begum on the basis of mother title deed who mortgaged the same 
as a security for the loan availed by M/s Om Sairam Products from 
respondent bank. Since the loan was not repaid therefore, the bank 
initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. After 
issuing demand notice dated 24.07.2007 and possession notice 
dated 21.01.2008, the symbolic possession was taken. 
3. The case of the appellant is that he came to know about the 
mortgage of the property on the date of affixture of possession 
notice on the property which is in his possession. Therefore, he 
filed a civil suit being No.83 of 2008 before the Civil Court for 
declaration of title to the property and also challenged the 
proceedings of the bank by filing S.A. No.125/2008 before the 
Tribunal below. The Tribunal below although observed that a civil 
suit is still pending and the title and rights of the parties have not 
yet been determined, yet did not find the appellant entitled for any 
relief and dismissed the S.A. 
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the title of 
the property is in dispute so, unless the title is cleared by the 
competent Civil Court, it cannot be said to be a secured asset
therefore, the bank cannot proceed further unless the title is found 
to be in favour of the mortgagor. Therefore, appeal be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent bank 
submits that since the mortgagor has deposited the sale deed as 
well as the mother deed with the bank therefore, the mortgage of
the property was righty created in favour of the bank. Hence, the 
appellants are not entitled for any relief.
6. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for 
the parties and perused the record.
7. Admittedly, a civil suit being No.83 of 2008 filed by the appellant is 
pending before the Civil Judge, Hyderabad in which both the 
appellant and respondents along with some other stakeholders are 
parties. Thus, it is apparent that the title of the subject property is 

3
in dispute and it cannot be inferred at this stage as to whether it 
belongs to the appellant or to the mortgagor. It is only the Civil 
Court who can decide the title of the property and the DRT cannot 
decide such issue. But unless the issue of title is decided, the 
property cannot be treated as un-encumbered secured asset of the 
bank. Therefore, in my opinion, the bank cannot take possession of 
the property which is presently in possession of the appellants, till 
the title of the property is decided by the Civil Court. 
8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 11.02.2015 is 
liable to be set aside. Hence, the same is set aside and the Appeal 
is allowed in the m

…