The civil court jurisdiction is not totally barred under the SARFAESI Act, and no injunction can be granted in respect of any action taken under the Act, except under serious allegations of fraud and collusion.

K.B.K.VASUKI, J.

1. This application is filed by the plaintiffs for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants herein from alienating or encumbering 2/3rd undivided share of the applicants in the suit property by way of sale, mortgage, lease or public auction or by any transfer or from disturbing the possession of the applicants in the suit property pending disposal of the above suit.

2. The few facts, which are relevant for consideration of this court, are as follows: The applicants herein are none else than the major son and daughter of the first respondent herein. The first respondent is the son of one K.Subramanian since deceased and K.Subramanian had 4 brothers. During the life time of his father, there was partition of the property among the father and sons in respect of both ancestral and self acquired property of the father, as per the terms of which, one of the properties, which was also the self acquired property of the father, allotted to K.Subramanian, who is the father of the first respondent and grand father of the applicants/plaintiffs, is the suit property. After the death of K.Subramanian, the property is inherited by the first respondent. The first respondent during 2009 obtained a mortgage loan from the second respondent-United Bank of India and the first respondent by way of security created a simple mortgage upon the suit property by deposit of title deeds under registered memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 23.12.2009. Thereafter, the first respondent defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, which compelled the second respondent bank to initiate recovery proceedings by resorting to the relevant provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'SARFAESI Act'). The second respondent bank, after complying with all statutory and procedural formalities laid down under the Act, brought the property into auction for realisation of the amount due to the bank.

3. At that stage, the plaintiffs who are the major son and daughter of the first respondent/borrower come forward with the present suit against their father and the bank for the reliefs of preliminary decree for partition and allotment of 2/3rd share in the undivided suit schedule property on the premises that the suit scheduled house property and other properties allotted to their father are ancestral in nature and after the death of the ancestors, the plaintiffs and the first defendant have inherited the properties jointly and have been commonly enjoying the same and the first defendant is having only 1/3rd share in the suit property and he has no right, title or interest in the remaining 2/3 share and the same belong to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have been neglected to be maintained by their father and their persistent demand for partition of the suit property was not responded by their father, as such, 2/3 share in the undivided property belonging to the plaintiffs cannot be brought into auction for recovery of the amount due to the second defendant/bank from the first respondent.

4. The suit is originally filed along with O.A.No.868/2011 for identical relief of interim injunction for restraining the respondents/defendants therein from alienating or encumbering or in any way dealing with 2/3 undivided share of the applicants in the suit property by way of sale, mortgage, lease or public auction or by any transfer or disturbing the possession of the applicants in the suit property. This Court on earlier occasion on 9.11.2011 before entertaining the application, raised a question as to whether son and daughter of alleged Kartha of a joint family property can seek partition of the property and whether Kartha of the family can be restrained from alienating the joint Hindu family property and directed the learned counsel for the applicants to enlighten the court on the clarification so raised by pro