ORDER : 1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , claiming the following relief: “To issue writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st and 2 nd respondents in issuing a notice for attachment (Form No.5) i.e AFC/RR AT/32G/AAR/716 dated 28.11.2019 attaching my property and also notices dated 05.11.2019 & 06.05.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act , 1951 and Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act , 1864 and violative of Articles 14 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1 st and 2 nd respondents to release my property mentioned, as it is illegal to keep it in their custody.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Corporation has sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.30 lakhs on 28.11.2012 to Dr. A. Anusha Rani/Respondent No.3 under Practicing Doctor's Scheme to purchase medical equipment for Nursing Home. One third party Gundra Srinivasa Reddy S/o Sundara Rami Reddy, R/o Nellore offered his property admeasuring an extent of 458.72 sq.yds as collateral security, by depositing original title deed in respect of the property and created equitable mortgage in favour of the Corporation. The petitioner has also availed Term loan of Rs.15 lakhs separately on 08.10.2010 vide Loan Account No.65874201 and offered collateral security i.e. house plot covering an extent of 57 Ankanams in Sy.Nos.25/1, 25/2 and 25/3, Patta No.87 & 84 located at Plot No.20, D.No.26-2-1979, Autonagar, Vedayapalem within the limits of Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore. The petitioner deposited original title deeds and created equitable mortgage in favour of the Corporation vide Registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed Document No.14098/2010. 3. As per the terms and conditions of loan sanction letter, petitioner and his wife executed “Agreement of Guarantee” and Covenant of Co-obligant in favour of the Corporation on 23.01.2013. Further, executed a notarized “Sworn Affidavit” on 06.02.2013 to the effect that the petitioner will not ask for return of original title deeds already deposited towards his loan account until closure of the loan account of his wife Dr. A. Anusha Rani/Respondent No.3. The petitioner availed additional term loan of Rs.19.94 lakhs, totally revaluing both the loan accounts to Rs.36.60 lakhs. The petitioner closed both the loan accounts on 01.07.2017 and 06.01.2018 respectively. A. Anusha Rani/Respondent No.3. The petitioner availed additional term loan of Rs.19.94 lakhs, totally revaluing both the loan accounts to Rs.36.60 lakhs. The petitioner closed both the loan accounts on 01.07.2017 and 06.01.2018 respectively. Since the petitioner has executed guarantee agreement, covenant of co-obligant and given the sworn affidavit for the loan account of Respondent No.3, the title deed documents pertaining to the property of the petitioner were mortgaged to the loan accounts and were not released in view of non-closure of loan account of Dr. A. Anusha Rani and that her loan account was declared as NPA by that time and proceeding were initiated under SARFAESI Act, 2002 by issuing Notice for attachment dated 28.11.2019 attaching the property of the petitioner. Questioning the action of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in attaching the property of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed counter affidavit denying material allegations. It is submitted that, it has come to the notice of the respondent Corporation that some part of the land in Sy.No.295 i.e. collateral security offered by Sri Gundra Srinviasa Reddy in favour of Respondent No.3 has been put in prohibited properties list and some part of the land in Sy.No.295 is also a subject matter of litigation pending before the District Court in O.S.No.240/2010 and O.S.No.70/2011. In view of the hurdles to proceed against the collateral security offered, the respondent Corporation has left with no option except to proceed against the property of the petitioner who has executed Guarantee Agreement, covenant/co-obligation and also given notarized affidavit consenting to retain the deposited collateral security title deeds in the custody of Corporation until closure of the loan account of Respondent No.3. It is submitted that, the Corporation issued final notice dated 06.05.2019 providing final opportunity to pay the dues on or before 21.05.2019, but there was no response for the notice. Both the petitioner and his wife and collectively practicing in Hyderabad and making promises to close the loan account, but failed to close the same and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner refuting the contentions made in the counter affidavit. Both the petitioner and his wife and collectively practicing in Hyderabad and making promises to close the loan account, but failed to close the same and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner refuting the contentions made in the counter affidavit. He submits that, he has never extended his property towards security to the loan account of the 3 rd respondent and he is not executed any documents for creation of mortgage against his properties as collateral security for Loan Account No.658702. He submits that, the Loan Account No.65882701 of Respondent No.3 had already classified as NPA on 22.12.2014 and thus the recovery of amount of Loan Account No.65882701 of Respondent No.3 was barred by limitation under ordinary course by 23.12.2017 and therefore, the recovery amount of Loan Account No. 65882701 of Respondent No.3 was barred by limitation and prayed for relief as prayed in the writ petition. 6. During hearing, Sri J. Ugranarasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions urged in the affidavit, would submit that, the petitioner availed top-up loan from the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Limited (henceforth "APSFC") with Loan Account Nos.65874201 for Rs.10 lakhs on 09.10.2010 by mortgaging his house plot (subject property) as collateral security. The petitioner also availed top-up loan i.e. additional term loan against the same property vide Loan Account No.65874202 for an amount of Rs.20 lakhs on 02.03.2013. The wife of the petitioner had also availed loan of Rs.30 lakhs from Respondent Nos.1 & 2 vide Loan Account No.65882701, wherein the petitioner stood as guarantor for the said loan. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner cleared both the loan accounts by July, 2017 and January, 2018 respectively and requested the Branch Manager, APSFC, Nellore to release the mortgaged property that was kept as collateral security. But Respondent Nos.1 & 2 did not chose to return the original title deeds even in the absence of deposit of original title deeds of subject property and in the absence of execution of any mortgage deed in respect of the loan accounts availed by the wife of the petitioner for Rs.30 lakhs. 7. But Respondent Nos.1 & 2 did not chose to return the original title deeds even in the absence of deposit of original title deeds of subject property and in the absence of execution of any mortgage deed in respect of the loan accounts availed by the wife of the petitioner for Rs.30 lakhs. 7. Learned counsel further submits that, against the subject property, no rights of mortgage were created in favour of Respondent Corporation and they cannot exercise their lien regarding title deeds of the subject property, as if the same were mortgaged as collateral security against the loan of the wife of the petitioner in regular course. 8. Learned counsel would submit that, the petitioner and his wife are two separate individuals and the liability of the wife cannot be fastened to the husband i.e the petitioner. More so, they cannot exercise rights over the subject property of the petitioner as a mortgaged property/collateral security property in the absence of any clear and categorical deed of mortgage in favour of the Respondent Corporation, which is contrary to the provisions of law of Transfer of Property Act , 1882 and also Banking Regulation Act , 1949. Hence, keeping the original title deeds of the petitioner in respect of the subject property with Respondent Nos.1 & 2 is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, after hearing the matter at the stage of admission, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 18.12.2019, directing Respondent Nos.1 & 2 not to take any action, pursuant to the notice of attachment dated 28.11.2019. In view of the continuation of the interim order, the property of the petitioner is still intact and therefore Respondent Nos.1 & 2 cannot exercise any rights over the subject property. He further argued that the loan of the wife of the petitioner was closed as NPA in the year 2014. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 did not pass any proceedings against the collateral property offered in favour of the loan account of the petitioner by one Gundra Srinivasula Reddy S/o Sundara Rami Reddy in respect of open plot admeasuring an extent of 450 sq.yds as collateral security. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 did not pass any proceedings against the collateral property offered in favour of the loan account of the petitioner by one Gundra Srinivasula Reddy S/o Sundara Rami Reddy in respect of open plot admeasuring an extent of 450 sq.yds as collateral security. Without initiating any proceedings against the collateral security, proceedings against the subject property of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner stood as guarantor to the subject loan without there being any valid mortgage to the corporation is arbitrary, highhanded action of Respondent Nos.1 & 2. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, without invoking recovery proceedings against the collateral property offered as security towards the loan of the wife of the petitioner, invoking against the subject property is against the terms of Guarantee Agreement and the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949. Apart from that, violation of recovery standing orders of the respondent Corporation is contrary to the terms of the Guarantee Agreement as stated above. Moreover, the subject property was notified in the list of prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act , 1908. 11. None appeared and no arguments were advanced on behalf of Respondent No.3. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed relevant documents to substantiate their claim. He submits that the documents filed along with the counter affidavit i.e Sworn Affidavit of the petitioner dated 06.02.2012 and Agreement of Guarantee dated 23.01.2013. He contends that, as per Clause 23 of the Agreement of Guarantee, the liability of the petitioner is coextensive with that of the Principal Debtor. Learned counsel drawn attention of this Court to Clauses 28, 29 & 30, which deals with determination of Agreement of Guarantee. He submits that, Clause 31, clearly and categorically authorizes the Corporation that till the date of realization of dues from the Principal Debtor, the property of the petitioner either movable or immovable shall be available to the petitioner only after repayment of the loan by the Principal Debtor. He submits that, Clause 31, clearly and categorically authorizes the Corporation that till the date of realization of dues from the Principal Debtor, the property of the petitioner either movable or immovable shall be available to the petitioner only after repayment of the loan by the Principal Debtor. He further submits that, apart from Agreement of Guarantee, the petitioner also executed Notarized Sworn Affidavit on 06.02.2012, wherein Clause 8 specifically states that the petitioner has mortgaged the property in favour of the Corporation duly registering the deposit of title deed vide Document No.14098 dated 16.11.2010 with Sub- Registrar, Nellore and further, the petitioner will not seek release of the said property till the loan availed by his wife Dr. A. Anusha Rani is repaid to the Corporation. 13. Learned Standing Counsel submits that Clause 8 of the Sworn Affidavit as well as the Clauses of the Agreement of Guarantee creates valid right against the mortgaged property of the petitioner, which is already mortgaged with Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as collateral security in respect of loan account of the wife of the petitioner. Therefore, having executed the documents in the manner of white and blue, now the petitioner cannot canvass that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Corporation cannot proceed against the subject property of the petitioner on the ground of no mortgage was executed and also cannot contend that the Corporation cannot proceed against the subject property, which is contrary to the settled legal proposition of Principle of Promissory Estoppel. 14. Learned Standing Counsel would further submits that, the petitioner cannot plead that the Corporation does not have any rights to invoke the recovery proceedings against the subject property as mortgage/collateral security property. Therefore, the respondent/corporation is entitled to recover the outstanding loan amount from the petitioner even without proceeding against the Principal Debtor, as per the clear terms of the Agreement of Guarantee. 15. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that, as far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the principal debt itself is time barred is contrary to the facts on hand and contrary to the terms of the loan agreement as well as Agreement of Guarantee executed by the Principal Debtor as well as the petitioner, since the recovery proceedings are already initiated within the time limit, but the same were discontinued due to the interim orders passed by this Court dated 18.12.2019. 16. 16. Learned counsel submits that, it is settled proposition of law that the mortgage rights of the respondent corporation against the property can be exercised upto 12 years from the last date of execution of mortgage. He submits that the recovery proceedings as well as the attachment proceedings which were issued against the property dated 20.08.2019 and notice dated 06.05.2019 and the other demand notices are within the period of limitation. Moreover, the petitioner himself paid Rs.2 lakhs towards discharge subject to debt of the loan account of his wife on 26.02.2019, as such, the petitioner cannot canvass that the loan has become time barred for the reason, once part payment is paid, limitation would start afresh. 17. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and perused the material available on record. 18. The fact remains that the petitioner as well as his wife availed term loans with Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Corporation in the year 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner executed mortgage deed against the subject property of two loans offering the subject property as collateral security. In fact, the loans availed by the petitioner are closed on 06.01.2018. In the absence of any Agreement of Guarantee and Notarized Affidavit towards the first loan of his wife, certainly the petitioner is entitled regarding his claim, which is putforth before this Court. But, contrary to the same, the petitioner had executed an Agreement of Guarantee and a Sworn Affidavit undertaking the petitioner liability of his wife and the petitioner is co- extensive with debtor, in view of the execution of personal guarantee agreement. Therefore, to substantiate these claims the relevant clauses are extracted as under. 19. Clause 8 of the Sworn Affidavit dated 06.02.2012 is extracted hereunder: “I have mortgaged the below said property in favour of your Corporation duly registering the deposit of title deed vide Document No.14098 dated 16.11.2010 with Sub-Registrar, Nellore. Further, I will undertake that I will not seek release of the said property till the loan availed by my wife Dr. A. Anusha Rani is repaid to your Corporation.” 20. Clauses 23 & 31 of the Agreement of Guarantee dated 23.01.2013 are reproduced hereunder: 23. My/Our liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. 31. Further, I will undertake that I will not seek release of the said property till the loan availed by my wife Dr. A. Anusha Rani is repaid to your Corporation.” 20. Clauses 23 & 31 of the Agreement of Guarantee dated 23.01.2013 are reproduced hereunder: 23. My/Our liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. 31. Your Corporation is entitled to proceed against us for recovery of your amount due from the principal debtor, without proceeding against the principal debtor first.” 21. Thus, from the clear terms of the Agreement of Guarantee, the subject mortgaged property of the petitioner is existing and continuing as collateral security in respect of the loan availed by the wife of the petitioner i.e. Principal Debtor. Hence, the respondent Corporation can exercise its mortgaged rights or lien against the subject property till redemption of mortgage is there by the borrower and guarantor/petitioner. 22. Further, by way of Sworn Affidavit, the mortgage rights which were already created were conferred against collateral secured property of the petitioner in favour of the respondent corporation even for recovery of the loan amount in case of default of his wife. 23. It is settled proposition of law that, having accepted and executed the required documents which are said to be valid documents, extending the subject mortgage as collateral security, later, either he cannot deviate from his promise or cannot plead contra to his undertaking which is nothing but seeking relief against the “Principle of Promissory Estoppel”. Furthermore, having accepted the liability of his wife/Respondent No.3 as co-extensive liability, but later denying the same, the said action of the petitioner is nothing but acting against the principle of Approbation and Reprobation. 24. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the loan account of the wife of the petitioner was declared as NPA in the year 2014 and issued notice of demand to the petitioner on 06.05.2019 and later, attachment of subject property on 28.11.2019 is clearly time barred and Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Corporation is not entitled to recover the same and proceed against the property is contrary to the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and also contrary to the terms of Deed of Mortgage. 25. 25. It is settled proposition of law that the mortgagee can exercise his mortgage rights against the subject property upto the period of 12 years from the last date of creation of mortgage as long as if there is outstanding liability. Admittedly, in the instant case, mortgage was created in the year 2013 and the property was attached in the year 2019. Therefore, the action of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 for attachment of property is within the period of limitation. But, due to the interim orders passed by this Court, further recovery had not taken place by the respondent Corporation. 26. As contented by the learned Standing Counsel, the other property which was offered as prime collateral security towards the loan of wife of the petitioner, is a property listed under the prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act , 1908. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the Respondent Corporation is entitled to invoke mortgage rights against the mortgaged/collateral property offered by the third party in favour of his wife is nothing but an act of mischief and playing fraud by the petitioner and on the part of Respondent Nos.1 & 2. It is also settled law that, once the petitioner played fraud, he is not entitled for any relief, muchless the relief as prayed for in the writ petition. 27. In view of the clear terms in Agreement of Guarantee as well as Sworn Affidavit as extracted above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief contrary to the Principle of Estoppel and also by virtue of Principle of Approbation and Reprobation. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 28. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 29. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.