Unregistered documents do not confer ownership of immovable property; valid title requires registration under the Transfer of Property Act.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 6881/2014, the appellant is before this Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein may be referred to in terms of their status in the entire gamut of proceedings: the appellant herein is the auction-purchaser who was successful in the auction conducted by respondent No. 1-Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (“respondent No. 1”) on 21.12.2010 inasmuch as the sale certificate has also been issued in favour of the appellant on 27.12.2010. Respondent No. 1 is the Bank to whom Champa Bhen Kundia is indebted as a borrower; respondent No. 2 is said to be the person who is in possession of the scheduled premises pursuant to an Agreement to sell and a General Power of Attorney; respondent Nos.3 to 8 have really no connection with the present dispute in question.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the secured asset, in this case, is the piece and parcel of land (measuring 55.7 Sq. yards) and the building and the Basement of House property bearing no. 2/22, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110018 (hereinafter referred to as “secured asset”). One Champa Bhen Kundia was the owner of the said secured asset. The basement of the secured asset was sold in favour of her son Chandu Bhai vide an unregistered sale deed dated 28.04.2000 allegedly for a consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Chandu Bhai again created an unregistered document to show the sale of the basement of the secured assets in favour of Satnam Singh and Surinder Wadhwa vide an unregistered sale deed dated 30.03.2001 for an alleged consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. Further, once again, Satnam Singh and Surinder Wadhwa created unregistered document, i.e. Agreement to Sell dated 23.04.2001 for the sale of the basement of the secured assets in favour of Raj Kumar Vij, i.e. respondent No. 2.

5. Be that as it may, Champa Bhen Kundia, the original owner of the secured asset took a loan from M/s Associated India Financial Service Pvt. Ltd. and mortgaged the secured asset on 16.06.2001. Said financing Company M/s Associated India Financial Service Pvt. Ltd. was taken over by M/s Citi Financial Consumer India Ltd which ultimately assigned its debts to M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank, i.e. respondent No. 1.

6. Respondent No. 1 served notice dated 28.10.2006 under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”) to Champa Bhen Kundia as the loan was not repaid. The notice remained non-complied, therefore, respondent No. 1 got the secured asset attached and took the physical possession of the secured asset by appointment of a Court Receiver under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act under the orders of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi vide order dated 06.09.2007.

7. After the physical possession of the secured asset was taken over by the Court Receiver, respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act being S.A. No. 118/2007 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III (“DRT”) claiming themselves to be the successor-in-interest of the principal borrowers and purchasers of the property.

8. By its order dated 23.11.2007, the DRT directed respondent Nos.2 to 6 to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- by 26.11.2007 and further directed respondent No. 1 to restore their possession on payment of the said amount. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 availed the benefit of the order dated 23.11.2007 and deposited the amount. However, respondent No. 2 herein did not make the said payment. Subsequently, by order dated 08.09.2009, the DRT disposed of the S.A. No. 118/2007, inter alia, directing respondent No. 2 to pay respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- approximately within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the order. The DRT further went on to hold that if respondent Nos.3 to 6 deposit the remaining amount with the Bank, the authorised officer of th