The central legal point established in the judgment is that the suit property not being mortgaged to the bank was not subject to SARFAESI proceedings, and the bank's conduct in conducting the auction was improper and irregular.

ORDER :

(Prayer in C.R.P.(PD)No.1805 of 2016: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 30.01.2015 in I.A.No.1780 of 2014 in O.S.No.602 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Munsifs Judge, Coimbatore. (Prayer in C.R.P.(PD) No.1806 of 2016: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 16.10.2014 in I.A.No.2298 of 2014 in O.S.No.602 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Judge, Coimbatore.)

1. The Civil Revision petition No.1805 of 2016 is preferred against the dismissal of petition filed for rejection of plaint under Or.7 R.11 C.P.C. The Civil Revision petition No.1806 of 2016 if preferred against the dismissal of petition filed for holding (i) that sale certificate dated 11.03.2014 is admissible and (2) that alleged document of No objection certificate is inadmissible for want of stamp duty and registration.

2. The predominant contention of the petitioner is that filing of suit before the Civil Court is barred under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The only remedy available to the plaintiff is to file an appeal u/s. 17 of SARFAESI Act and the civil suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has admitted the sale notice, auction conducted by the 2nd defendant bank. Even after the sale been confirmed and a sale certificate was issued on deposit of the sale amount, he filed a civil suit which is specifically barred and therefore, the suit should have been rejected and on the other hand Trial Court has dismissed the petition.

3. I have heard the counsel appearing for both sides.

4. It is well settled that for deciding an application under Or.7 R.11 C.P.C the averments made in the plaint are germane for consideration. A reading of the plaint discloses the following facts:

Originally an extent of 5.93 acres of agricultural property which includes the suit property also was owned by one Arumuga Gounder, he sold

5. By way of a registered sale deed he sold the property to one Thambi Gounder @ Palani Gounder on 10.02.1936. Arunachala Gounder being the sole legal heir of Thambi Gounder @ Palani Gounder inherited the property. The said Arunachala Gounder has two sons viz., Palanisamy and Duraisamy. They have partitioned the property among themselves in which Schedule I consisting of 3.78 acres in S.F.No.341/1 was allotted to Arunachala Gounder. Schedule II was allotted to Palanisamy and Schedule III was allotted to Duraisamy. Schedule II consists of Survey No Extent 350/1 2.66 acres 350/2 and 351/2 0.08 acres

6. In so far as property in S.F.No.352 measuring an extent of 1.17 acres was retained by the said Arunachala Gounder in other words it was not included in the partition. Out of this 1.17 acres he sold 80 cents in S.F.No.352 to one Kandasamy Gounder by way of registered sale deed. The said sale was ratified by a notarized ratification deed dated 08.10.2008 by the legal heirs of Arunachala Gounder in favour of the legal heirs of P.Kandasamy. The legal heirs viz., Valliammal the mother, Vasanthi the wife and daughters Keerthana and Jayashree of late Kanthsamy sold the property measuring 0.80 acres in S.F.No.352 in favour of the plaintiff on 15.10.2008. They are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

7. While the matter stood thus, during 2012, 5th respondent bank started measuring the properties. They have measured properties of the plaintiff in S.F.No.352 also. On enquiry it was informed that 1st defendant Duraisamy had mortgaged 1.66 a