IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that suppression of material facts regarding a mortgage can bar a civil suit under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

This revision is directed against an order of Mr. Mohd. Firoz, Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Aligarh dated August the 22nd, 2022, rejecting the defendant-revisionist' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') made in Original Suit No. 985 of 2021.

2. The plaintiff-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, Smt. Malka Bansal and Km. Keshvi Bansa, who shall hereinafter be called 'the plaintiffs' (unless the context requires a different reference), instituted O.S. No. 985 of 2021 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Aligarh on 13.12.2021 for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction.

3. The facts leading to the suit and the plaintiffs' case shortly put is that House No. 2/473, Vishnupuri, Lane next to Sumangalam Nursing Home, Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh (for short, 'the suit property') was built on a part of land taken on lease by Shiv Prasad Bansal on 6.10.1937. It bore Plot No. 40. Shiv Prasad Bansal died on 20.4.1973. He was survived by his heirs and LRs, to wit, Satyendra Kumar Bansal, Devendra Kumar Bansal and Vipin Kumar Bansal. In a family settlement, the suit property was acknowledged to the share of Satyendra Kumar Bansal. His name was recorded in the records of the Vishnupuri Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited on 20.7.1995. Satyendra Kumar Bansal expired on 1.11.2005. After his demise, the name of his heirs was not mutated in the revenue records. Amongst the plaintiffs, Smt. Malka Bansal is Satyendra Kumar Bansal's widow whereas Km. Keshvi Bansak is his daughter. According to the plaintiffs' case, they are residents in the suit property. Both the plaintiffs are women. Smt. Malka Bansal is 82 years old and a widow. She is permanently handicapped. Km. Keshvi Bansal is an unmarried woman. It is the plaintiffs' case that defendant No. 1, the Aryavart Bank, Branch Ramghat, Aligarh, represented by its Branch Manager intend to illegally occupy the suit property whereas the said property has never been mortgaged with defendant No. 1, the Aryavart Bank. According to the plaintiffs, no one has mortgaged the said property to secure any kind of loan, availed from defendant No. 1.

4. It is the plaintiffs' case that the suit property is a house, built on land, which is leased for a duration of 80 years. For the said reason, it cannot be the subject-matter of a mortgage to secure a loan. The land on which the suit property, comprising the plaintiffs' residential house stands, is owned by defendant No. 2 to the suit, the Vishnupuri Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited, Surya Marg, Vishnupuri, Aligarh. The land comprising the suit property was taken on lease through a registered lease deed 6.10.1937 by Smt. Malka Bansal's husband's father, Shiv Prasad Bansal. There are then allegations, already set out hereinbefore, showing devolution of the suit property on his three sons and heirs followed by a family settlement. The settlement, where the suit property was acknowledged to have come to the share of Smt. Malka Bansal's husband, the late Satyendra Kumar Bansal, was declared in a suit between the three sons of Shiv Prasad Bansal being O.S. No. 118 of 1986, decided by the Civil Judge, Aligarh. Satyendra Kumar Bansal was mutated, again as already said, in the records of the Vishnupuri Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited on 24.7.1975 as a lessee. In the assessment records of the Nagar Nigam, the late Satyendra Kumar Bansal was recorded as owner of the suit property. Upon the demise of Satyendra Kumar Bansal on 1.11.2005, the name of his heirs have not been recorded in the annual assessment register, relating to house tax. The suit property continues to be recorded in the name of Satyendra Kumar Bansal. It is also pleaded that in all relevant records, Satyendra Kumar Bansal continues to be recorded as the lessee of the suit property. The plaintiffs' case is that the Aryavart Bank, defendant No. 2 is on the look out to grab the plaintiffs' property. On 18.11.2021 at 12 noon, the employees