The interplay between the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and the applicability of the limitation period for enforcing mortgage debts were crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

G. Rajasuria, J.

Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this application would run thus:

(1) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

(a) to declare that the entire proceedings initiated by the defendant purported to be under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 27-7-2009 attempting to proceed against the plaintiff’s property as null and void.

(b) consequently, to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their servants, agents, men, working or claiming through them from in any way proceeding against the plaintiff’s property in any manner whatsoever pursuant to the notice dated 27-7-2009 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

(ii) The same plaintiff filed this application seeking injunction as under:

“to grant permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, their servants, agents, men, working or claiming through them from in any way proceedings against the plaintiffs property in any manner whatsoever pursuant to the notice dated 27-7-2009 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, pending disposal of the suit.”

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and raking in the C.S. After entering appearance, the respondent filed the counter.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The gist and kernal, the pith and marrow of the case of the plaintiff would run thus:-

(a) Like a bolt from the blue, the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, dated 27-7-2009, for the immovable property was came to be affixed on the premises of the plaintiff, described in the schedule of the plaint. Whereupon, the plaintiff was constrained to file suit in the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet, seeking injunction as against the defendant herein and subsequently this suit also has been filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

(b) The plaintiff purchased the suit property from one Devika Rani, who is turn purchased the suit property earlier from the following persons:

1. S. Santhana Marian

2. M.R. Vincent

3. G. Gnanam

4. Smt. S. Varuvel Thayammal

5. G. Pushpammal

6. S. Dasan

7. S. Navamani

8. S. Anthoni Ammal

9. A. Amsadasan

10. A. ADdennisan

11. A. Rose Garmela

12. A. Arulmani

(c) The defendant bank, which claims to have mortgage right over the suit property, by virtue of the equitable mortgage created by deposit of title deeds by one Arulmani for himself and on behalf of the plaintiff’s vendor’s vendors on the strength of the Power Deed dated 17-9-1990, had no right at all to create such mortgage. The Bank, suppressing the real facts simply approached the DRT and obtained some order, which is emerged by practising fraud and misrepresentation and it should be taken as non-est in the eye of law. Fraud vitiates everything and the plaintiff being the purchaser of the suit property, without notice of all those happenings, is entitled to be protected. Accordingly, the petitioner/plaintiff prays for injunction.

5. Whereas, the case of the defendant bank as found set out in the counter could pithily and precisely, tersely and briefly be portrayed thus:

(a) Arulmani is not only the Power Agent of the plaintiff herein, but he also happened to be one of the co-shares of the suit property and the plaintiff’s vendor’s vendors had the power to create mortgage in favour of the Bank.

(b) Over and above that, the bank instituted the suit in C.S. 1694 of 1994 for recovery of money due under the mortgage before this Court. At the advent of the special enactment, namely, The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the case was transferred from the original side of this Court to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, as its value exceed