RA 188/2017

1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

Dated the 2^nd of August, 2022

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar

CHAIRPERSON

RA 188/2017

Between

1. Mr. P. Prabhakar,

16-S-5, Gokul Flats,

No.15, Parankusapuram,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.

2. Mrs. G. Sujatha,

15 (New No.37), Flat No.8,

Jubilee Road,

West Mambalam,

Chennai-600 033.

……Appellants

And

1.

Central Bank of India,

Triplicane Branch,

“Hameediya Complex”,

Triplicane High Road,

Chennai – 600 005.

RA 188/2017

2

2.

B. Sivaganesan,

“Sri Hariharasuthan Illam”,

New No.15, Old No.8,

Nethaji Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.

3.

Sri Sasthru Associates Kadenthethi Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

B. Sivaganesan,

397, Precision Plaza (Basement),

Anna Salai,

Teynampet,

Chennai – 600 018.

…..Respondents

ORDER

1. This Appeal is against judgement dated 02.08.2017 in OA

236/2014 (old OA No.188/2009 before DRT-I, Chennai) on the file

of DRT-II, Chennai.

2. Brief relevant facts necessary for the purpose of this Appeal

are as follows:-

RA 188/2017

3

First Respondent Bank initially filed OA 188 /2009 before

DRT-1, Chennai for recovery of Rs.11,25,149/- together with

interest on contractual rate from the date of Application till the

date of realization, and thereafter, OA was transferred to DRT-II,

Chennai on point of jurisdiction and numbered as OA 236/2014.

It is contended that 1^st Appellant herein approached 1^st

Respondent Bank for Housing Loan i.e. acquisition of an

undivided extent of 418.25 sq. ft., scheduled in Schedule ‘B’ to

OA, out of a total extent of 1673 sq. ft. of land, which is described

in Schedule ‘A’ to OA, for construction of flat with built up area of

790 sq. ft., promoted by 3^rd Respondent herein and that 1^st

Appellant availed said loan on 07.05.2007, executed necessary

documents and also created mortgage over property described in

Schedule ‘B’ to OA on execution of Sale Deed in his favour.

Second Appellant stood as guarantor for Housing Loan and 1^st

Respondent Bank released money from time to time and in total a

sum of Rs. 9.65 Lakhs has been released. In spite of release of

payments,

no

construction

activity

commenced

and

as

Defendants failed to discharge the amount, 1^st Respondent Bank

filed OA for recovery of outstanding dues. Appellants herein filed

RA 188/2017

4

Written Statement denying the claim of 1^st Respondent Bank,

contending

that

they

never

approached

Applicant

Bank

themselves for Housing Loan, but 2^nd Respondent herein took

them to 1^st Respondent Bank promising to arrange Housing Loan

where Manager of 1^st Respondent Bank furnished them with

application form for Housing Loan, and they signed as borrower

and guarantor respectively on request of 2^nd Respondent herein.

It is further contended 2^nd Respondent herein alone was dealing

with 1^st Respondent Bank, and they were not aware of details of

sanction and disbursement. They also contended they have not

even paid marginal money which is a pre condition for

disbursement of loan and they were summoned by CBI

Authorities for investigation of a complaint lodged against

Manager of 1^st Respondent Bank. It is further contended that 3^rd

Respondent herein never constructed Flats as proposed and they

have not received loan amount from 1^st Respondent Bank. They

also contended no sale deed conveying undivided share was

executed and registered in favour of 1^st Appellant, therefore, they

are not personally liable for OA amount and they have no

objection to sale of suit property.

RA 188/2017

5

3. Tribunal below on a consideration of pleadings of both

parties and evidence, disallowed the contentions of Appellants

herein, and allowed OA fixing personal liability also on Appellants

for OA amount. Aggrieved by fixing personal liability, Appellants

preferred present Appeal.

4. Both parties filed Written Arguments and Learned A