Bank estopped from SARFAESI enforcement against bona fide plot purchasers without notice when it consented to land subdivision, sales, and received proceeds for mortgage release, with clean encumbrance certificates.

COMMON ORDER

1. These three appeals are filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, as follows:

a) RA(SA) 12/2018 is filed against the order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai in SANo.348/2008 dated 24.3.2017.

b) RA (SA) 163/2018 and RA(SA) 41/2019 are filed against the order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai on 7.1.2016 in SA No.409/2014.

2. SA No.348/2008 was filed by Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha, the appellant in RA(SA) 12/2018 against the Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, N. Sivaji, T.R. Gopi and R. Akbar Ali to call for the records from the Indian Bank, enquire the same and to declare the measures taken in respect of the schedule mentioned property including sale certificate issued by the respondent bank in favour of respondents 2 to 4 in the SARFAESI application, as invalid.

3. The case of the appellant in RA(SA) 12/2018 viz., the applicant in SANo.348/2018 is that she is the owner of the four plots bearing Plot Nos.122, 123, 125 and 126 of Haritha Enclave, West Tambaram, Chennai 600 005, by virtue of purchase dated 14.3.2007 and a building measuring 3743 sq.ft. has been constructed in these plots. Originally, a part of the schedule mentioned property was purchased by one Mr. Arasu Rajarathnam from Mr.A.S. Ramanujam and Blue Jaggers Estates Limited on 7.2.1996. Another part of the schedule property was purchased by Emma Rajarathnam from A.S. Ramanujam and Blue Jaggers Estates Ltd. by virtue of two sale deeds dated 7.2.1996. Appellant, Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha took loan from Centurion Bank for buying the property and sale consideration was paid through A/c Payee Cheque. When she purchased the property, she verified the encumbrance from 1.1.1987 to 15.3.2006 and found there was no encumbrance. Original documents were deposited with Centurion Bank with an intention to create mortgage. She was paying the monthly instalments regularly. There was superstructure at the time of her purchase on 14.3.2007. There was an attempt to trespass into the property on 17.12.2008 and she gave a compliant in S-11 Police Station, Tambaram. Later she came to know that respondent bank sold the property under the SARFAESI Act and that large extent of land was mortgaged with Indian Bank and similarly placed plot owners approached the bank and on their request, there plots were not auctioned. She came to know that Plot Nos.122 and 123 had been sold to second respondent and Plot No.125 to the third respondent and Plot No.126 to the 4^th respondent. All the plots are within the same compound wall with a single house constructed in these plots. They cannot be split up and sold. Sale was held without following the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, SA No.348/2008 was filed. After contest, this SA was dismissed. Therefore, the appeal viz., RA(SA) 12/2018 is filed.

4. First respondent in RA (SA) 163/2018, Shri Satyanarayanan filed SA No.409/2014 against the Authorised Officer, Indian Bank to declare that respondent bank did not follow the procedure in accordance with law. He is entitled to notices under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the SARFAES Act. Sale, if any, held on 5.11.2008 is not valid and binding on him and to forbid the respondent from taking any steps against the SA schedule property and for other reliefs.

5. The case of the first respondent in RA(SA) 163/2018, in brief, is that applicant Shri V. Sathyanarayanan in SANo.409/20