ORDER :

V. Parthiban, J.

1. The applicants in Application No. 1299 of 2021 are the defendants 4 and 5 in the suit in C.S. No. 383 of 2020; respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the respondents 3 to 5 are the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for the following prayers:

(a) declaration of the plaintiffs' 2/5 (Two-Fifth) share in the suit property and partition and separate possession of their share thereto;

(b) declaration that any guarantee given by the 1st defendant with respect for the suit property is sham, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs;

(c) injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in any manner;

(d) injunction restraining the fourth and fifth defendants from alienating or otherwise creating encumbrances of any nature in the suit property;

(e) mandatory injunction directing the 4th and 5th defendants to hand over the original title and other documents pertaining to the suit property, morefully set out in the Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds (for short, 'MoD'), dated 06.05.2013 and registered as Document No. 503 of 2013 before the Sub-Registrar, Chennai Central Joint-I to the plaintiffs (morefully described in the Schedule-B hereto), and

(f) for the costs.

3. The brief facts and circumstances which gave rise to the filing of A. No. 1299 of 2021 are stated hereunder:

(a) The applicants are the Nationalised Bank. According to the applicants, M/s. Vishwakarma Real Estates and Construction India Private Limited (for short, borrower-Company), which was managed by the second defendant, had availed open cash credit (OCC) facility of Rs. 50 lakhs on 10.09.2001 from them and subsequently enhanced the facility from time to time upto Rs. 3 crores as on 29.04.2013. The Bank Guarantee limit which stood at Rs. 3 crores, was lastly renewed on 07.04.2017 to the tune of Rs. 6 crores for its business operation and the said borrower/Company executed loan security documents in favour of the applicants/Bank. In order to secure the repayment of the loan amounts, the respondents 3 to 5 herein stood as personal guarantors by executing guarantee agreement, besides offering collateral security of the suit property.

(b) In consideration for the grant of the credit facilities offered by the Bank, the third respondent herein/first defendant had deposited original title deeds on 19.09.2001 with an intention to create Equitable Mortgage (for short, 'EM') in terms of Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. It appeared that subsequently, the said EM has been periodically extended from time to time and the third respondent had lastly executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (MoD) on 06.05.2013, registered as Document No. 503 of 2013 in the Joint-II Sub-Registrar Officer, Central Chennai, pertaining to the suit property.

(c) According to the applicants/Bank, the respondents 1 and 2 herein are fully aware of the fact that the borrower-Company, had availed credit facility as early as in 2001 by depositing original title deeds of the suit property with them. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are living in the same property as reflected in the cause title in the plaint itself.

(d) The borrower-Company had failed to repay the outstanding loan amount, in terms of the agreement and consequently, the loan amounts with the applicants/Bank had slipped into Non-Performing Asset (NPA) category as per the extant Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Guidelines, dated 30.05.2018. In the said circumstances, the applicants/Bank was constrained to initiate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "SARFAESI Act) in respect of the suit properties. The applicants/Bank had also filed O.A. No. 332 of 2019 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, 'DRT')-II, Chennai for recovery of Rs. 5,87,87,728.50 as on 28.02.2019 from the bo