The petitioners, lacking legal ownership of the property, must adhere to statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act prior to seeking relief from the High Court.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2026)

Petitioners are not parties to the loan transaction. They filed S.A.No.783 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, aggrieved by the recovery measures initiated against their ancestral property. Immovable property having an extent of 40 cents comprised in Sy. no.124/1 in Chittilappilly Village, Thrissur District, originally belonged to late Mary George. After the death of the father, the A schedule of property was allotted to Mejo George/3^rd respondent and their mother, Mary George, under partition No.3571/2010 of the Mundur SRO. The 3^rd respondent demolished the existing structure, built a new house, and continued to reside there. The 3^rd respondent and Mary George agreed to sell the property to the petitioners for a consideration of Rs.4,00,00,000/-, and a written agreement was executed on 02.11.2017. The petitioners paid the 3^rd respondent a total of Rs.3,50,00,000/-, and the agreement period was extended considering the ill health of Mary George and the 3^rd respondent’s circumstances. After the death of Mary George, the full ownership vested with the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent mortgaged the property to the 1^st respondent without disclosing the fact to the petitioners, thereby violating the agreement.

2. On 03.06.2025, a legal notice was issued on behalf of the petitioners regarding the sale of the family property. Since no action was taken, the petitioner instituted O.S.No.185 of 2025 seeking a declaration and consequential reliefs in respect of title, possession, and encumbrances. The Bank filed a claim petition in this suit for lifting the attachment passed in the suit.

3. On 17.04.2025, the bank issued a demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act to the borrower and certain heirs. Thereafter, an application was filed under Section 14 before the CJM Court, Thrissur, as C.M.P. No.12321 of 2025 without disclosing the pendency of the civil suit, and the CJM passed Ext.P3 on 14.11.2025 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured assets. The Advocate Commissioner issued a notice dated 28.11.2025 informing that physical possession of the property will be taken after 14 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

4. The petitioners, therefore, preferred I.A.No.4673 of 2025 in the S.A. seeking a stay of all actions. The said application was taken up for hearing on 11.12.2025 and adjourned to 15.12.2025 for counter. The application was heard and reserved for orders on 18.12.2025. On 18.12.2025, the respondent bank filed a memo producing several documents, and the petitioners filed a reply. Thereafter, the case was reopened for a fresh hearing on 07.1.2026. When the bank proceeded further for taking physical possession, before the order was passed in the stay petition, the petitioners approached this Court, and filed O.P. (DRT) No.433 of 2025, and an interim order was passed on 23.12.2025, ordering status quo to be maintained till orders are passed by the DRT in the application for stay. In the meantime, the DRT passed, orders in I.A. No. 4673 of 2025 in S.A.No.783 of 2025 on 02.01.2026, which is produced as Ext.P9. Petitioners impugn Ext.P9 as it was passed in derogation of statutory provisions and the law explained by the hon’ble Apex Court.

5. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the 1^st respondent, wherein it is contended that the original petition is not maintainable in law or fact. The order passed in I.A. No.4673 of 2025 in S.A.No. 783 of 2025 is an appealable order, and petitioners have not availed the efficacious statutory remedy under Section 18 of the Act. O.P.(DRT) and S.A. are collusive litigations filed by