IMPORTANT POINT
Civil court’s jurisdiction is completely barred in Debt recovery proceedings.

Deepa Sharma, J.—The notice in the case was issued to the defendants. Shri Ashish Rana accepted the notice on behalf of defendant No.3-Bank and raised the objection to the jurisdiction of this Court alleging that the same is barred under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) and the jurisdiction lies with Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

2. This Court, therefore, heard the arguments of the parties on these objections treating it as preliminary issue.

3. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for partition for declaring the Release Deed dated 12.10.1998 and conveyance deed dated 23.12.2002 as null and void and for permanent injunction against the defendant No.3-Bank and for restraining the defendant No.3-Bank and their officers, agents, etc. to proceed in any way against the 50% undivided share of the plaintiffs in property bearing plot No. 21, measuring 199.07 square yards in block G, Paschim Vihar earlier known as Industrial Worker, CHBS Limited, 66, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi (suit property) scheduled to be e-auctioned on 22.03.2017.

4. The plaintiffs have set out a case in the plaint to the effect that the suit property was allotted by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to their father by way of perpetual sub-lease deed which was a registered document registered as Document No. 2564 in additional book No.1, Volume No. 3078 on pages 153 to 165 dated 23.05.1978 in the office of Sub-Registrar-II, New Delhi. As per the plaintiffs, their father executed a registered gift deed dated 28.05.1985 and pursuant to this gift deed, gifted 50% undivided share in the said plot to the defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are sisters of their deceased father. The remaining 50% share in the said plot was kept by their father for himself. He died intestate on 18.11.2006 and thereafter the plaintiffs have become the owner of 50% undivided share of that plot. During the lifetime of their father, the constructions were raised on the said plot. The defendant No.2 vide a registered release deed registered as document No. 65111 in additional book No. 1, Volume No. 9108 on pages 120-123 dated 14.10.1998 in the office of Sub-Registrar, released her half share in the said plot in favour of the defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs have also challenged the said Release deed seeking declaration that the said Release Deed is a null and void document on the ground that the defendant No.2 had no right to release her half share of the said plot in favour of the defendant No.1 because she was only given 50% undivided share in the said plot along with her sister and both of them were the joint owners of 50% undivided share of the said plot. Various other grounds have also been raised while challenging the said Release Deed. It is further contended that the defendant No. 1 had also wrongly obtained a registered conveyance deed dated 23.12.2002 in her favour from the office of DDA, New Delhi. The transfer of said plot in favour of the defendant No. 1 on the basis of Release Deed was wrong and it was obtained by submitting forged and fabricated documents and on the basis of misstatements and misrepresentations. It is alleged that both the defendants had wrongly claimed themselves the full owners of the plot while under the gift deed they both together were owners of 50% undivided share in the said plot. It is further contended that defendant No. 1 had created an equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds of above plot with the defendant No.3 against loan taken by her son-in-law in the name of M/s Packman Enterprise with Account No. 606330110000006, as a guarantor. The defendant No. 1 and her son-in-law defaulted in repayment of the loan and their liability is to the extent of Rs.1 crore 90 lakhs. The defendant No.1 had given her consent to defendant No.3 to sell the property and adjust the same proceeds against their dues and to transfer the balance amount in the