Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 301 (MAD)

S. R. Ravichandran v. S. K. R. Devaraj

2014-02-07

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the sale notice, dated 5.12.2012, and the paper publication effected on 21.1.2013, by the third respondent. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the property in question, belonging to the petitioners had been mortgaged to the fourth respondent Bank, by the first respondent. The property in question is in the joint possession of the petitioners and the first and the second respondents, based on a Will executed in their favour, by one Munian Chettiar. The property had not been partitioned by metes and bounds. While so, the first respondent had created a forged power of attorney in his favour, as though it had been executed by the petitioners and the second respondent. Based on the said power of attorney the first respondent had executed a mortgage deed, in favour of the fourth respondent Bank, for a sum of Rs.3,50,00,600/-. In such circumstances, the petitioners have filed a civil suit, in O.S.No.34 of 2013, on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Coimbatore, and it is pending disposal. While so, as the borrower had not paid the loan amount, the fourth respondent Bank had declared the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset and the property of the petitioners had been brought for sale, by way of a tender-cum-auction and it had been purchased by the sixth respondent. Thereafter, the sixth respondent had been attempting to take physical possession of the property in question. While so, the fourth respondent bank had filed an original application, in O.A.No.5 of 2012, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, for the recovery of the amount payable to it. In such circumstances, the first respondent has filed S.A.No.49 of 2012, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, to declare that a fraud had been played upon him and that the sale effected, in respect of the property in question, ought to be declared to be null and void. In such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the respondents had submitted that, based on the sale notice, dated 5.12.2012, the property in question had been sold and a sale certificate had also been issued in favour of the sixth respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the respondents had submitted that, based on the sale notice, dated 5.12.2012, the property in question had been sold and a sale certificate had also been issued in favour of the sixth respondent. While so, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this court making vague and false allegations against the respondents, without furnishing sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the petitioners have made certain claims, in respect of the property in question, without placing before this court sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims. Further, as there are certain disputes relating to the facts of the case, with regard to the ownership and possession of the property in question, we find it appropriate to hold that such issues could be decided only by a civil court having the competent jurisdiction to decide such issues. The claims made by the petitioners would depend on certain facts, which are to be proved by way of evidence, either oral or documentary. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to hold that it would be open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate civil forum to establish their rights, if so advised, in the manner known to law. We are clear that such disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by this court, by invoking its extra-ordinary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioners to establish their rights, if any, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. It is also made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.