SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
UCO Bank and Another – Appellants
Versus
Manjana Verma Sahni and Another – Respondents
CMPMO No. 294 of 2022
Decided On : 11-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jitender Pal Ranote
For the Respondents: Bimal Gupta, Varun Thakur

Civil suit by bona fide third-party purchaser alleging fraud in prior gift and mortgage deeds not barred by SARFAESI Act; jurisdiction vests in Civil Court as Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot adjudicate title and fraud issues for strangers.

Headnote:(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 17, 34 and 35 - CPC - Order VII Rule 11 - Civil suit for declaration that prior gift and mortgage deeds are void ab initio and fraudulent, and for permanent prohibitory injunction against secured creditor taking possession - Plaintiff bona fide purchaser in possession under subsequent sale deed, stranger to loan transaction - Issues of title, fraud and validity of documents not adjudicable under Section 17 by Debts Recovery Tribunal - Bar under Sections 34 and 35 inapplicable to strangers; Civil Court has jurisdiction - Application for rejection of plaint rightly dismissed. (Paras 8, 10, 11 and 12)

(B) Jurisdiction - Civil Courts - Bar of jurisdiction not readily inferred; strict interpretation required - Reliefs concerning fraud, ownership and injunction outside SARFAESI fora. (Paras 9 and 11)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff instituted suit claiming ownership and possession of property under registered sale deed, alleging prior gift deed and mortgage deed in favour of secured creditor executed fraudulently by unrelated party, seeking declaration of their nullity and injunction against dispossession. Secured creditor filed application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of plaint on grounds of SARFAESI bar and lack of cause of action, dismissed by trial court.

Findings of Court:
Civil suit maintainable; trial court to frame issues, permit evidence and decide on merits including maintainability.

Issues: Whether civil suit barred by SARFAESI Sections 17, 34, 35; whether enforceable cause of action exists against secured creditor.

Ratio Decidendi: Plaintiff as stranger neither borrower nor guarantor; prayers for declaration of fraud in foundational documents and injunction require civil court adjudication, not SARFAESI remedies; rejection of plaint at threshold inappropriate.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. suit challenges bank's possession based on alleged fraudulent mortgage (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties argue civil court jurisdiction under sarfaesi act (Para 5 , 6)
3. sarfaesi bars jurisdiction only for drt-empowered matters (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. plaintiff is stranger to bank's loan transaction (Para 10)
5. civil court trial required for third-party fraud claims (Para 11 , 12)
6. petition dismissed; trial court order upheld (Para 13)

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 06.04.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in CMA No. 202/6 of 2021, in Civil Suit No. 19/2020, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioners herein, under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), was dismissed.

2. The respondent herein has instituted a suit for declaration and for permanent prohibitory injunction as also for mandatory injunction against the present bank and one Amandeep Singh, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff is the lawful owner in possession of the property i.e. Flat No.1, situated at Ground Floor, Block 18 Phase II, Housing Board Colony, Saproon, Solan, in terms of a sale deed executed and registered on 11.12.2019. According to the plaintiff, the property was purchased from one Manjeet Singh. The property in question was initially allotted by HIMHUDA to one Smt. Anuradha Mehrotra, who transferred the same subsequently in favour of Manjeet Singh and this was done after seeking due permission from HIMHUDA. After Manjeet Singh became the owner of the property, he sold the same to the plaintiff against consideration. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was under the bona fide impression that the suit property being free from all type of charges, was transferred in her name as nothing stigmatic appeared to be there and whatever was the charge of ICICI Bank, stood cleared by the plaintiff. Yet now defendants No.1 & 2 are proceeding to take possession of the said property on the basis of some alleged mortgaged documents executed by defendant No.3 Amandeep Singh. It is in this backdrop that the suit has been filed alleging that the bank officials in connivance with Amandeep Singh, had played fraud upon the plaintiff. The reliefs sought in the suit are as under:-

“a) Decree of declaration declaring the Gift deed bearing registration no. 558/2008 alleged to be executed and registered in the name of defendant no.3 and thereafter mortgage deed bearing registration no.661/2015 alleged to be executed in by defendant no.3 in favor of defendant no.1 and 2 as void ab initio, false and fictitious documents and is a result of fraud committed by defendant no.1 to 3 in connivance with each other and same deeds are not binding upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit property on the basis of sale deed bearing registration no.2471 registered on dated 11-12-2019.

b) A Decree of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the defendants no.1 and 2 to misuse the process of law to take the possession of the suit property i.e. bearing Flat No.1, Ground Floor, Block 18 Phase II, Housing Board Colony, Saproon, Solan, constructed in a land comprised in khata khatoni no.500min/533 khasra no.kita 5 total measuring 74-01 bigahs Tehsil and District Solan H.P. by situated in mauja Dehun dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property in any manner whatsoever and to create charge, encumbrance of any type in any manner what so ever upon the suit property.

c) Any other additional or alternative relief if this Hon'ble Court deem fit under the present fact and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice and fair play.”

3. Written statement to the plaint stands filed by the present petitioners. A counter-claim has also been filed by the petitioners before the learned Trial Court.

4. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top