191090109602018_b9a53ff85bd762daceea86248c715592.pdf

1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(ApplNo. 183 of 2018)
(Arising out of S. A. 02 of 2017 in DRT-2,Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLEMR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
1.
Smt. Doddu Sharadha, W/o. Late Sri. D. Jangaiah, Aged about 55 
years, R/o 3-4-151 Sy. No. 41/13, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
 …Appellant
                                  -Versus-
1. 
Authorised Officer, State Bank of India(Formerly known as State Bank of 
Hyderabad)  Nandyal Branch, Deshpande Buildings, Tekke, Nandyal -
518501, Kurnool District, A.P.
2.
M/s. SPR Rural Godowns, Represented by its partners,  Smt.Seelam 
Aparna, W/o. Sri. S. Pratap Deddy,H.No. 28-783/B5, NGO’s Colony, 
Nandyal, Kurnool District, AP.
3.
Sri Doddu Satyanarayana, S/o. late Sri DodduJangaiah R/o. 2-4-680/23, 
Kachiguda, Sundernagar, Hyderabad.
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
JUDGMENT             
:   
On 24th August 2022
The instant Appeal has arisen against a judgment and 
order dated 14th September, 2018 passed by Learned DRT 
Hyderabad in SA No. 02 of 2017 whereby the Learned DRT has 
dismissed the SA filed by the Appellant.  
As far as pleadings of the parties are concerned, the 
Appellant is a third party to the SARFAESI proceedings.  Her 
husband namely Sri D.Jangaiah was allotteeof plot of land 
bearing plot No. 204, measuring 240 sq. yards forming part of 

2
Sy. No. 49/13, Bahadurguada, Ranga Reddy District.  Her 
husband died.  A gift deed was executed by her in favour of 
her  son Sri D. Satyanarayana who is Respondent No. 3.  It is 
alleged that gift deed was fraudulently obtained by the 
Respondent No. 3 which is under challenge before the Civil 
Court.  
Respondent No. 3 executed a General Power of 
Attorney in favour of one Sri Jitendra Lal  and Sri Pratap Reddy  
who in turn sold and transferred the said property to the 2nd 
Respondent namely M/s SPR Rural Godowns who is partners of 
Smt. Seelam Aparna, wife of S. Pratap Reddy who in turn 
mortgaged the property in favour of the Respondent No. 1 for 
availing the loan facility.
A sale notice was issued by the Respondent No. 1 on 
21.10.2015.  Appellant came to know about the mortgage.  
Accordingly, he filed a SARFAESI Application with the aforesaid 
facts before the DRT.
Respondent No. 1 and 2 filed their reply and stated that 
the Respondent No. 3 had executed the General Power of 
Attorney in favour of Sri Jitendra Lal and Sri Pratap Reddy.  
Respondent No. 3 got the property on the basis of the gift 
deed executed by the Appellant.  Thereafter, the General 
Power of Attorney holders sold the property to Respondent No. 
2 who in turn mortgaged the same to the Respondent No. 1.  
When the loan account was irregular, it became NPA and 
proceedings 
under 
SARFAESI 
Act 
were 
initiated 
on 
21.10.2015.  It is alleged that the scheduled property belongs 
to the Respondent No. 3.After the death of her husband 
Appellant inherited the property who executed the gift Deed in 

3
favour of the Respondent No. 3.  On the basis of the gift Deed, 
General Power of Attorney was executed.  Secured asset forms 
part of Sy. No. 49/13 which is listed as one of the properties 
which 
are 
listed 
in 
the 
list 
of 
prohibited 
properties.  
Accordingly, SA is liable to be dismissed.
After going through the record, Ld.DRT recorded a finding 
that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the 
mortgaged property mortgaged to the 1st Respondent Bank by 
2nd Respondent in favour of the Respondent No. 1 who 
executed survey No. 49/1.  Accordingly, SARFAESI Application 
was dismissed.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that initially, 
the patta was executed in favourof  Late Jitendra Lal, husband 
of the Appellant.  Admittedly he died in the year 1996.  In the 
Patta certificate survey Number is mentioned as Sy. No. 49/13 
while in the  secured asset it is mentioned as Sy. No. 49/1.  In 
the gift deed survey number is mentioned as 49/1.  Hence, the 
property is not identifiable.  It is further submitted th

…