The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the finality of the District Magistrate's order, and the lack of authority to decide civil rights or property shares.

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order of District Magistrate, Gwalior dated 31.3.2015 (Annexure P/). The District Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the 'SARFAESI Act') directed the Tahsildar, Gwalior to take possession of the mortgaged property and hand it over to Bank of Maharashtra.

Facts:

2. The petitioners are daughters of Smt. Subhadra Bai. It is contended by the petitioners that the property in question was purchased by Smt. Subhadra Bai through registered sale deed dated 16.4.1979 from Dhani Ram Gupta (Annexure P/10). Smt. Subhadra Bai died while remaining in possession on 17.10.2005. Smt. Subhadra Bai died leaving behind legal representatives - (i) Meera Gupta-daughter (petitioner) (ii) Rajesh Gupta-son (iii) Geeta Gupta-daughter (petitioner) (iv) Sunita Gupta-daughter (v) Sanjeev Gupta-son (vi) Pawan Gupta- son (vii) Anita Gupta-daughter.

3. Shri Ashish Saraswat, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by virtue of Section 15(1)(a) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property has devolved in the sons and daughters. Accordingly, the petitioners are having 1/7th share (each) in the said property. It is contended that Civil Suit No. 7A/2012 was filed by Rajesh Gupta (brother of petitioners) before Fourteenth Additional District Judge, Gwalior. In the said civil suit, the present petitioners are also party respondents. In the said civil suit, the Bank filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissing the suit in view of section 34 of SARFAESI Act. The said application of Bank was dismissed by the trial court on 2.3.2012. This order is called in question by the Bank in Civil Revision No. 145/2012. This Court by order dated 9.11.2012 stayed the proceedings of said civil suit.

4. Shri Ashish Saraswat further contends that petitioners do not have any alternative remedy. The petitioners were not heard by the Bank before taking coercive action under section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The District Magistrate has also erred in not deciding the question of right of petitioners on 1/7th share of the property. It is vehemently argued that unless the rights and shares of the petitioners are crystalized and decided, the Bank has no authority to proceed further. The District Magistrate has erred in not deciding this aspect. Shri Saraswat submits that it was obligatory on the part of the District Magistrate to decide the question of 1/7th share of the petitioners on the property in question. In support of contentions, he relied on (2014) 6 SCC 1 (Harshad Govardhan Sondagar vs. International Assets Reconstruction Co.Ltd. & Ors.); 2013 (1) MPHT 252 (Prabha Jain vs. Central Bank of India and others); AIR 2011 BOMBAY 144 (State Bank of India v. Sagar Pramod Deshmukh); AIR 2009 MADRAS 74 (M/s. Cambridge Solutions Ltd., Bangalore v. Global Software Ltd. & Ors.); AIR 2007 RAJASTHAN 129 (Mohan Lal and another vs. Dwarka Prasad & Ors.); AIR 1006 KARNATAKA 21 (Krishna v. Kedarnath & Ors.) and, Rohit Chauhan vs. Surinder Singh and others [(2013) 9 SCC 419)].

5. Shri Harshwardhan Topre, learned counsel for the Bank opposed the said relief. He submits that the present petition suffers from "suppressio Veri". The petitioners have approached the court with unclean hands and, therefore, not entitled for any relief. A preliminary objection is raised on the ground that under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3413. Shri Topre contended that the respondent-Bank sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs. 16.00 lacs to M/s. Anurudh Builders & Developers, acting through its partners. Pawan Gupta and Sanjiv Gupta (responden