The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to avail the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 made the Writ Petition premature and impermissible.

1. The Petitioners have preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records in respect of S.R.No.6692/2013 in O.A.No.135/1998 and to quash the same. Further, they have sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the 1st Respondent to number the case and pass orders on merits.

2. Writ Facts:

(i) According to the Petitioners, the property situated at Papparambakkam Village, Thiruvallur Taluk, comprised in Survey No.565/2 measuring to an extent of 2.90 acres originally belonged to their father viz., Ramachandra Reddy, who expired on 02.10.1999 leaving behind his wife, 4 daughters and a son. After the demise of their father, they searched for title deeds in respect of the property and the same was found missing. As a matter of fact, the said property stood in the name of the deceased and encumbrance certificate also did not reflect any adverse entry. As such, after issuing public notice, they sold out the properties to numerous third parties by means of Registered Sale Deeds and also they were put in possession and further, the mutations of revenue records were effected.

(ii) The version of the Petitioners is that on 05.10.2013 all of a sudden some police men attached to the Land Grabbing Cell came to their house and called for an enquiry and only then, they came to know that their purchasers had alleged a complaint against them by alleging that the property was sold suppressing the fact that the deceased father T.K.Ramachandran had given immovable property as security which is in question. Also that, they showed some documents to the effect that O.A.No.135 of 1998 was filed by the 2nd Respondent/Bank against one M.B.Abdul Khader and their deceased father T.K.Ramachandra. Moreover, they had claimed that their deceased father had given his immovable property as security and was not served with any summon in the O.A. and he died intestate on 02.10.1999, leaving behind the Petitioners, his wife viz., their mother and a son, as legal heirs who are entitled to succeed to his estate.

(iii) It is the specific case of the Petitioners that the 2nd Respondent/ Bank had not bothered to take effective steps to serve notices on them and bring the legal heirs on record. In fact, the Bank and the Recovery Officer had chosen to proceed with the sale of immovable property of their deceased father by issuing a demand notice, attachment, proclamation of sale and auction sale etc. all in the name of dead person. In short, the entire procedure adopted by the 2nd Respondent/Bank and the Recovery Officer is unlawful and violative of principle of natural justice.

(iv) Besides the above, the grievance of the Petitioners is that 10 years after the death of their father, Debt Recovery Certificate dated 11.11.2009 in D.R.C.No.182 of 2009 was issued in the name of dead person i.e. T.K.Ramachandran, who was arrayed as 3rd Defendant in the Original Application. Later, a demand notice was issued in the name of their father, without impleading the legal heirs and putting them on notice. In fact, the 2nd Respondent/Bank had chosen to execute the Debt Recovery Certificate. Also that, the attachment was effected in the name of dead person and the legal heirs were deliberately kept in dark in regard to the distress action and a fair procedure was not followed.

(v) The conduct of the 2nd Respondent/Bank is not valid because of the fact that it had hurriedly with an ulterior motive proceeded with the auction and sale of the mortgaged properties, by initiating and issuing all notices and processes in the name of their deceased father. No sanctity could be attached to the auction sale that took place on 03.12.2010 in favour of an auction purchaser. That apart, no paper publication was effected in a daily which had wide publicity and no endeavour was made to fetch good market price for the property. Even the publication that was effected in a daily is an insignificant one and also that, no prop