K.T. Sankaran, J.

The question involved in this appeal is whether a relief can be granted under Section 17(3) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in favour of a person other than the borrower. The application filed by the appellant/plaintiff for temporary injunction was dismissed by the court below, which is under challenge in this appeal.

2. The suit was filed by the appellant against one V.P.Sharaf and three others. The respondents, State Bank of India and its Chief Manager, are defendants 2 and 3. One P.A.Nazeer is the fourth defendant. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession of the plaint schedule properties and that Document No.1967/2006, Sub Registrars Office, Kuthiathodu, is only a "nominal sale deed operating as a security". There is an alternative prayer to declare that the aforesaid document is only a sham document and that defendants 2 and 3 had not obtained any right over the plaint schedule properties and they are not entitled to proceed against the same. There is a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants 2 and 3 from "disrupting the ownership, possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintiff". The plaintiff contended that after purchase of the properties, he constructed a house and he is residing with his family in that house. The plaintiff was engaged in seafoods exports business. He was a partner of a registered firm. A loan was availed by the firm from the State Bank of Travancore and title deeds in respect of plaint schedule properties were deposited with the bank. Since the loan was not discharged, the Bank filed O.A.No.1141 of 1999 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. As per the order in the O.A., the Bank initiated recovery proceedings. There was a settlement with the Bank and as part of the settlement, some of the items of properties were sold as per the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The plaintiff needed a further sum of Rs.10 lakhs for discharging the loan. He approached his brother, the first defendant, who agreed to advance

money on condition of the plaintiff offering the plaint schedule properties as security. A document, styling it as a sale deed, but which was in substance a security document, was executed in the name of the first defendant. The plaintiff was allowed to reside in the residential house. An agreement for re-conveyance was also executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Utilising the amount borrowed from the first defendant, the loan amount due to the State Bank of Travancore was closed. As per the agreement of re-conveyance, the plaintiff has time till 18.7.2009 to repay the loan amount to the first defendant. The prior title deeds were not handed over to the first defendant. It is stated in the plaint that on 29.2008 one advocate along with officers of the second defendant Bank and the officer designated by the third defendant came to the residence of the plaintiff and served a notice to him. It was revealed that the fourth defendant had taken a loan from the second defendant Bank, for which, the first defendant stood as surety and the plaint schedule properties were mortgaged in favour of the Bank. The plaintiff contended that the first defendant had no right to mortgage or alienate the plaint schedule properties. It is stated that the fourth defendant cheated the first defendant and due to the false promise made by the fourth defendant, the first defendant happened to deposit the title deeds in respect of the plaint schedule properties with the second defendant for the loan contracted by the fourth defendant. The suit was filed with the aforesaid reliefs in these circumstances.

3. Alongwith the suit, an application for temporary injunction for restraining defendants 2 and 3 from evicting the plaintiff and his family from the plaint schedule properties was filed.

4. Ther