Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over matters related to secured debts under the SARFAESI Act; aggrieved parties must approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 19^th October 2011, passed in R.A.No.37/2011, on the file of II Addl. District Judge and In-charge Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, (for short, `first Appellate Court'), which arose from the judgment and decree dated 2<sup>nd</sup> November 2010, passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, (for short, `trial Court'), in O.S.No.381/2000.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction with the following averments:

That the suit property was earlier belonging to one Gopal Rao. He sold the suit property in favour of one Keshavamurthy by the Sale Deed dated 13.04.1981 (Ex.D-2), which was registered on 14.07.1981. The said Keshavamurthy executed a general Power of Attorney dated 22.11.1992 in favour of one K.Mariyappa (Ex.D-3). The said Mariyappa sold the property to defendant No.1 - D.Ramamurthy under registered Sale Deed on the basis of Power of Attorney executed by Keshavamurthy. The said Ramamurthy mortgaged the suit property in favour of defendant No.2-Bank by creating equitable mortgage as he stood surety to one of the borrower. The Bank filed O.A.No.424/1998, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, `DRT') and obtained an order for sale of the suit schedule property to recover the outstanding amount.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that, Keshavamurthy executed a registered Sale Deed dated 06.04.1993 (Ex.P-2) in favour of husband of plaintiff by name Gundappa Shastry. The said Gundappa Shastry was put in possession of the property. The defendant No.1 - Ramamurthy, who had purchased the suit property from Mariyappa - Power of Attorney Holder of Keshavamurthy, filed a suit in O.S.No.106/1993 against Keshavamurthy, Gundappa Shastry and Mariyappa, on the file of Prl.Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. It appears, Gundappa Shastry, who was one of the defendants, made a counter claim for the relief of declaration, to declare him as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The said suit was compromised and parties to the said suit agreed to declare Gundappa Shastry as the absolute owner of the property and the said suit was decreed in terms of compromise.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 22.10.1999, when plaintiff visited the suit property, she found that officers of the 2^nd defendant-bank were inspecting the suit property. On enquiry, she came to know about the mortgage of the suit property by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2-bank, offering the suit property as security to the loan obtained from defendant No.2-bank. They also informed that Bank had obtained a decree in O.A.No.424/1998 for auctioning the suit property to recover its outstanding amount. With these reasons, plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs :

"(i) for a declaration, declaring that the plaintiff who is the legal representative and successor in interest of late Gundappa Sastry being his wife is the absolute owner in physical possession of the schedule property exercising the rights of ownership as the absolute owner thereof