Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 979 (JHR)

Suresh Prasad Sahu v. State Bank Of India

2018-05-01

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Rajesh Shankar, J. - The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent No. 1-State Bank of India, Ranchi Branch, Ranchi to hand over the title deed of the properties purchased in auction sale to the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 30th November, 2015 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. Case No. 116 of 2014. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a public notice was issued under the signature of the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi on 11th December, 2006, inviting sealed covers for sale of immovable properties of M/s. International Shellac and Allied Products with respect to factory and shed on Plot No. 510, Khata No. 1317, measuring an area of 94 decimals, situated at village Bundu, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi through public auction. The petitioner participated in the public auction held on 8th January, 2007 and declared a successful bidder. The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi after payment of entire sale price confirmed the sale vide its letter dated 26th June, 2007. Subsequently, the petitioner represented the Bank on 16th December, 2011 and 17th February, 2012 for release of the original document of purchased immovable property, but the same has not been handed over to the petitioner till date. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the basis of the order dated 30th November, 2015 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. No. 116 of 2014, which is an ex-parte order passed without hearing the respondent-Bank. It is further submitted that originally a suit bearing Money Suit No. 120 of 1984 was preferred against the original borrowers and guarantors, namely, M/s. International Shellac and Allied Products, Praveen Premchand Sarvaiya, Nitin Adhikari, Santosh Kumar Mukherjee and Shyarnlal Khanna for recovery of loan amount of Rs. 6,59,437.98 and the same was ultimately decreed on 25th April, 2001 with interest @ 11% per annum and after calculating interest, the total of recovery amount came to Rs. 33,11,771/-. After enactment of Recovery of Debt Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993, execution case for an amount of Rs. 6,59,437.98 and the same was ultimately decreed on 25th April, 2001 with interest @ 11% per annum and after calculating interest, the total of recovery amount came to Rs. 33,11,771/-. After enactment of Recovery of Debt Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993, execution case for an amount of Rs. 10.00 lacs and above had to be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and, accordingly, Execution Case No. 8 of 2003 was preferred before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. It has further been stated that, thereafter, a case was registered before the Debts Recovery Tribunal being R.P. No. 27 of 2005 and when the borrowers and guarantors failed to repay the decretal amount, then on 11th December, 2006, the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi invited bids in sealed cover for sale by public auction of immovable property of M/s. International Shellac and Allied Products. The petitioner participated in the public auction and vide order dated 26th June, 2007 he was declared as successful purchaser and the sale was confirmed in his favour. Accordingly, a certificate of sale (Annexure-3) was issued in favour of the petitioner. It has also been stated that the respondent-Bank preferred a money suit, which was decreed in favour of the Bank and all the documents, including the sale-deed, which is subject-matter of the present writ petition, must have been exhibited in Money Suit No. 120 of 1984, and it is not possible for the respondent-Bank to hand over the same to the petitioner because the suit is of the year 1984, which was decreed on 23th April, 2001. The respondent-Bank has tried its best to locate the records of Money Suit No. 120 of 1984 in the record room of Civil Courts, Ranchi, but failed to get any clue. The respondent-Bank is still trying to locate the records of the said suit and the deed and as soon as the same is located, it will immediately hand over the same to the petitioner. However, the respondent-Bank is ready and willing to provide a certificate/other assistance to the petitioner, as could be extended. The petitioner being a successful auction purchaser of the property, the sale has already been confirmed and the sale certificate has been issued in his favour. However, the respondent-Bank is ready and willing to provide a certificate/other assistance to the petitioner, as could be extended. The petitioner being a successful auction purchaser of the property, the sale has already been confirmed and the sale certificate has been issued in his favour. It has further been averred in the counter-affidavit that if any property is sold through public auction and the sale certificate is issued by the Court, it does not require any registration as per section 17 (2) (xii) of Registration Act, 1908 and the sale becomes absolute. The sale certificate is the evidence of such title and the auction purchaser derives right, title and interest over the said property on the basis of the sale letter itself. The petitioner is having the sale certificate, yet he is unnecessarily insisting on the sale-deed of the erstwhile owner, which is not required as per law. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The respondent-Bank has admitted the fact that in the public auction of the immovable property of M/s. International Shellac and Allied Products, the petitioner was declared successful purchaser and the sale was also confirmed in his favour. Accordingly, a sale certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner. The respondent-Bank has, however, shown its inability to provide original sale-deed of the property in question stating that it is still trying to locate the records of the said suit and as soon as the same is located, it will be handed over to the petitioner. It has also been averred in the counter-affidavit that the respondent-Bank is ready to provide assistance to the petitioner as could be extended. The respondent-Bank has also referred the provisions of section 17 (2) (xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 contending that if any property is sold in the public auction and the sale certificate is issued by the Court, the same does not require any registration and the sale certificate itself is the evidence of such title of the auction purchaser. 6. However, it also appears that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi vide order dated 30th November, 2015 passed in M.A. Case No. 116 of 2014 has already directed the respondent-Bank to hand over the title deed of the property to the petitioner and the said order is binding on the respondent-Bank till the same is recalled/modified/set aside in accordance with law. 7. 7. Since there is already an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, there is no need of passing any further order in the present writ petition. Nevertheless, the respondent-Bank has taken the stand in the counter-affidavit that it is still trying to locate the said sale-deed and till the same is traced out, the respondent-bank is ready to provide required assistance to the petitioner considering the circumstance which may arise relating to the property purchased by the Petitioner through public auction. 8. However, it goes without saying that if the original title deed of the property in question is required for any purposeful reason by the petitioner, the respondent-Bank is under obligation to provide the same as well as to render all possible assistance to the petitioner, so that his interest over the purchased property may not get frustrated in absence of the original title deed. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.