IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 6^th day of March, 2026 PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON (arising out of SA No.113/2017 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai)

Between CANBANK FACTORS Ltd.

(subsidiary of Canara Bank)

Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Spencer Towers Annexe, No.770-A, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

…..Appellant And Mr. Sarath Kakumanu S/o Late Subbiah, No.29, Bishop Gardens, R.A. Puram, Chennai 600 028.

…..Respondent Counsel for Appellant : Mr. S. Pandurangan Counsel for Respondent : M/s G. Desingu & &Co.

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, against the order passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai in SA No.113/2017 on

13.11.2017.

2. The Respondent in this appeal filed the above SA challenging the measures taken under SARFAESI Act, especially seeking to set aside the sale notice dated 15.4.2017 fixing E-auction sale on 24.5.2017. The main plea taken in the said SA was that the schedule property is an agricultural property and thus exempted under Section 31(i) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Learned Presiding Officer concurred with the plea taken by the respondent and allowed the SA. Against the order allowing the SA, this appeal is filed.

3. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim of the respondent that the property mortgaged with bank is an agricultural property, is not supported by any acceptable evidence. Learned Presiding Officer allowed the Securitization Application on the basis of description of property given in sale deed, sale notice and revenue documents, such as, Patta and Adangal. The Property was owned by Late Subbaiah, father of respondent. He was the founder and Managing Director of M/s Pioneer Alloys Casting Pvt. Ltd. When the aforesaid Company availed the loan facility with appellant, the deceased Subbaiah offered the schedule property as security and executed a valid mortgage. There is no indication in the sale deed that the property is an agricultural property. The revenue records will not establish the fact that the property is an agricultural property and agricultural operations were carried out at the time of creating the security interest and continued thereafter. Thus, he submitted that without producing any concrete evidence to show that the property was used for agricultural purpose and agricultural operations were carried out at the time of creation of mortgage and continued thereafter, Learned Presiding Officer wrongly allowed the SARFAESI application. Thus submitting, learned counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the order of Learned Presiding Officer by allowing this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the property concerned in SA

113/2017 is an agricultural land. Learned Presiding Officer, in para-7 of the impugned order held that “as per Section 31(i) of the Act, the respondent cannot proceed against the agricultural property and there is no proper reply from the respondent. On perusal of copy of the sale deed, patta and adangal and the sale notice, it is seen that the secured asset is an agricultural property and therefore, the respondent cannot proceed against the agricultural property”.

In this view of the matter, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application.

5. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondent that the sale deed, patta and adangal would show that the property is shown as Punja land with drains, water ways, passages, water sources. It leads to a presumption that the property is an agricultural land with all drains, passages and water sources.

6. These documents make it clear that properties are agricultural punja lands wherein coconut trees are cultivated and cultivation activities are still carried out.

These revenue records are sufficient to prove that the subject land is an agricultural land.

7. Learned Presiding Officer, after satisfied with the fact that land is an agricultural land held that the proceedings unde