IMPORTANT POINT
The purchaser who is not vigilant enough to ask for original documents of title cannot be said to be a Bonafide purchaser entitled to protection under law.

Justice J.M. Malik, Chairperson. —

Recovery Officer accepted the objections filed by the buyers of the property in question and declared them bonafide purchasers vide his order dated 24.11.2003. The learned DRT vide his order dated 4.10.2006 reversed his order and declared that mortgage executed in favour of the bank was valid and appellants/buyers were not the bonafide purchasers. Aggrieved by that order the second appeal is preferred.

2. The facts germane to this appeal are as follows. Ghaziabad Improvement Trust granted a lease in favour of Shri Jamuna Das Gupta, father of Shri Santosh Kumar Jindal, respondent No.4 and grandfather of Shri Rajiv Kumar Jindal, S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Jindal, respondent No.5, in respect of plot No. KC-68 measuring 246.66 sq. metres situated at Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad on 31.12.1966. The appellants grievance is that although, the said property was not transferable, yet, the same was transferred to Shri Santosh Kumar Jindal through a family compromise made in Civil Suit No. 1323 of 1996 without seeking permission of GDA, the successor of Ghaziabad Improvement Trust. Consequently, the said transfer of property has no force in the eyes of law and is null and void.

3. The civil suit was decreed and after acquiring the rights in property, Shri Santosh Kumar Jindal while working in cahoots with the State Bank of India subjected this property to equitable mortgage on 22.8.1997 and took the loan in favour of his firm Ganga Tea Products by depositing the original lease deed dated 31.12.1966 along with certified copy of the decree of the Civil Court dated 23.7.1997.

4. Subsequently, the said property was declared as a free hold property in favour of Shri Jamuna Das Gupta vide sale deed dated 22.12.1999, Ext. P-1.

5. Shri Jamuna Das Gupta wanted to sell that property. The proposed buyers the appellants in this case, published a notice in the local newspaper known as Dainik Bhavi Satta on 23.8.2002, whereupon the banks or financial institutions were called upon to file objection/information in respect of the sale of case property in their favour within a period of 15 days vide newspaper clip Ext. P-2. No objections were received, therefore, an agreement to sell was executed by Jamuna Das Gupta on 13.9.2002 in favour of the appellants. The appellants paid a sum of Rs. 14.40 lac and the sale deed was executed in favour of the appellants on 29.3.2003. The appellants are in possession of the said house since then.

6. Ganga Tea Products failed to payoff the loan and D.R.T. decided the case of recovery of loan in favour of the respondent bank vide judgment dated 4.10.2006.

7. The Recovery Officer vide its order dated 24.11.2003 decided the case in favour of the appellants, released the property from the attachment and held that the appellants are bonafide purchasers of this property but permitted the applicant bank to trace and declare other assets/properties in possession of Jamuna Das Gupta from which recovery could be made by their sale failing which the matter of arrest and detention of the Jamuna Das Gupta could be considered. However, the learned DRT reversed this order.

8. Case of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as set out in their counter-affidavit is as follows. The appellants are their relatives. The property in question was sold after it was disclosed to the appellants that the property was mortgaged with the respondent bank. The appellants had agreed to pay the bank’s dues in OTS for a sum of Rs. 9.00 lacs and subject to that condition the objector agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 14.40 lac and executed an agreement to sell on 13.9.2002. It is explained that the value of the property at that time was Rs. 36.00 lacs. The respondents agreed to sell the property for a lower amount in the sum of Rs. 14.00 lacs because the appellants had agreed to make the payment of Rs. 10.00 lac against total outstanding of OTS, but the appellants intentionally avoided the payment of the banks dues and allowed the pro