ICICI BANK LIMITED vs KULBHUSHAN GROVER on 5 October 2026

**FINAL ORDER**

This is time bound matter as per order dated 06.07.2026 passed by the Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi (passed in Misc. Application no.46/2026).

2. This original application was filed by the applicant bank on 30.11.2011 under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.1,44,50,738.85 (Rupees One crores Forty Four lacs Fifty thousand Seven hundred Thirty Eight & paisa Eighty Five only) as on 11.10.2011 together with pendentelite and future interest @24% rate from the date of filing of this application till its realization with costs.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 to 3, the applicant bank sanctioned housing loan facility of Rs.1,07,09,429/- (Rupees One crore Seven lacs Nine thousand Four hundred Twenty Nine only) on 03.08.2006 for purchase of Plot No.876-B, Block-A, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon (Haryana) and Top Up loan for a sum of Rs.5,61,712/- in 05.03.2009 which to be repaid in 156 and 60 EMIs and later on revised to 277 and 61 EMIs respectively. The defendant no.4 has been arrayed as she is in the possession of the sd property which has been purchased from defendant no.1 despite prior charge/ lien of the bank.

4. That in order to avail both the credit facilities, the defendant no.1 to 3 executed Loan Facility Agreement dated 31.07.2006 and 05.03.2009 respectively in favour of applicant bank. That in order to secure the credit facilities, the defendant no.1 deposited the original sale deed of the property no.876-B, Block No.A, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon executed by M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. favoring Sh. G.C. Jain on 19.06.2000 alongwith proposed Sale Deed to be executed by Sh. G. C. Jain favoring defendant no.1, promising to deposit original sale deed as and when executed. The applicant bank further submitted that defendant no.1 fraudulently sold the property to defendant no.4 instead of depositing original sale deed with bank.

5. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facilities, the defendant no.1 failed to maintain financial discipline and thereafter the applicant bank called upon the defendants to make the dues/charges/interest towards loan facility as per schedule despite repeated reminders, requests/demands and issued recall notice dated 21.12.2009 to regularize their account.

sd-

6. The applicant bank issued notice u/s 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act on 22.06.2010 for Rs.1,31,40,610/- duly published in newspapers on 12.08.2010 and defendant no.1 in his false & frivolous reply dated 11.09.2010 denied the mortgage of property and alleged that property had been sold to defendant no.4. Thereafter, applicant bank received notice dated 14.09.2010 from defendant no.4 claiming to be owner of property and in possession of original sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in her favour, however, prior sale deed and other related original documents are in possession of bank along with proposed sale deed signed by defendant no.1.

7. The applicant bank in its reply dated 20.11.2010 stated that as per agreement, said property was mortgaged as security for due payment of loan having first, exclusive and paramount charge over the property till repayment of loan and inspite of terms and conditions to be abide by defendant no.1 to 3, but sold the property to defendant no.4 without permission/information of the bank and also replied to defendant no.4 on 27.11.2010 thereby stating that defendant no.1 sold the property without permission which is void and illegal and they are liable to prosecute under criminal and civil action.

Sd-

8. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendant no.1 to 3 have chosen to absent from the proceedings and vide order dated 03.01.2014, the defendants no.1 to 3 have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants no.1 to 3.

9. The defendant no.4 filed its written statement on 11.12.2012 praying therein to reject/dismiss the application against her as no relief has been sought against the property and no cause of action for the applicant bank. It has further been submitted that the defendant no.3 is neither the borrower nor the guarantor or mortgagor of her property in question, is in peaceful possession and is registered, legal and valid owner of property much prior to filing of present original application and the original registered sale deed dated 07.08.2006 executed between Sh. G. C. Jain,(first owner) favoring defendant no.1 and original registered sale deed dated 23.03.2010 executed by defendant no.1 fvg. defendant no.4 together with originals are not in possession of applicant bank, but in possession of defendant no.4 admitted by applicant bank. Further, applicant bank claims alleged purported charge of property on the basis of title deeds deposited and other documents by defendant no.1 and from notice u/s 13 (2) dated Sd- 22.06.2010 and never issued to defendant no.4. The applicant bank claiming charge on the basis of "proposed sale deed to be executed by Dr.G.C. Jain in favour of defendant no.1 herein and had promised to deposit with applicant bank", which never in existence on the date of agreement or when payment disbursed by bank. It has further been submitted that only allegation made against defendant no.4 and her property that fraud has been played in conspiracy. It has further been submitted that neither any particular facts have been pleaded as per requirement of Order 6 Rule 4 of CPC that what is the fraud and conspiracy to which applicant bank alleged which must categorically and explicitly provide the particulars with necessary each facts and dates of purported fraud or conspiracy. Further, allegation of fraud made from the sake of making allegations and no police complaint or FIR was lodged by applicant bank against defendant no.4 as the applicant bank claiming alleged charge on property in question on the basis of deposit of title deeds by defendant no.1. The applicant bank relied upon proposed sale deed bearing purported signatures of defendant no.1 which is no document of title in the eyes of law as it is not devolve any ownership rights qua the property in favour of defendant no.1 based on various judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court and other courts of law. It has further been submitted that purported charge not even registered with sd- concerned Sub-Registrar and defendant no.4 is a bonafide purchaser of property which is freehold and free from all sorts of encumbrances. It has further been submitted that the defendant no.4 as bonafide purchaser entered into sale transaction with defendant no.1 and purchased the property after payment of consideration by cheques and concerned with document i.e. sale deed dated 07.08.2006 executed by Sh.G.C.Jain favoring defendant no.1 duly handed over at the time of registration of sale deed dated 23.03.2010 and also ensured by obtaining certified copy from the office of Sub-Registrar. It has further been submitted that the applicant bank sanctioned Top Up Loan on 05.03.2009 after gap of three years of Facility Agreement dated 31.03.2006 without depositing title documents in original and even creating equitable mortgage and no criminal proceedings initiated against the borrower by the bank. It has further been submitted that the defendant no.4 is true, legal and valid registered owner in peaceful possession of property in question and defendant no.1 to 3 have not been served before this Tribunal. In view of this, defendant no.4 pray to reject this original application and in particular prayer 6 (b) of application against the property in question.

10. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ashutosh Gupta, authorized Sd- representative of the applicant who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Exhibit AW1/1, Signature Identification of AR Exhibit AW1/2, Facility Agreement Exhibit AW1/A-3, & Exhibit AW1/4, Regd. Sale Deed dated 19.06.2000 Exhibit AW1/5, Copy of Proposed sale Deed Exhibit AW1/6, Demand Notice Exhibit AW1/7, Newspapers dated 12.08.2010 Exhibit AW1/8, Objection dated 11.09.2010 Exhibit AW1/9, Legal Notice/Objection Exhibit AW1/10, Reply dated 20.09.2010 Exhibit AW1/11, Reply dated 27.09.2010 Exhibit AW1/12, Reply dated 12.12.2010 Exhibit AW1/13, Loan Recall Notice Exhibit AW1/14, Statement of Accounts Exhibit AW1/15.

11. Heard the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the records thoroughly.

12. In the present matter, the applicant bank has filed the present original application for recovery of Rs.1,44,50,738.85 (Rupees One crores Forty Four lacs Fifty thousand Seven hundred Thirty Eight & paisa Eighty Five only) alongwith future interest. However, the defendant no.4 has raised the objection that the defendant no.4 is the bonafide owner of the property in question and the property in question was not mortgaged with the applicant bank, whereas the applicant bank has raised the objection that the property in question is validly mortgaged with the applicant bank. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant bank that the defendant No.1 (Sh. Kulbhushan Sd-

Grover) along with defendants nos.2 and 3 as co-borrowers, approached the Applicant Bank for grant of home loan facilities for purchase of property bearing Plot No. 876-B, Block-A, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon and pursuant thereto, the Applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed financial assistance vide Loan Account Nos. LBDEL00001379976 and LBDEL00001756635, under Facility Agreements dated 31.07.2006 and 05.03.2009 respectively, for the specific and sole purpose of enabling Defendant No. 1 to acquire the said Property and the said property stood mortgaged to the Applicant Bank as security for both facilities. It has further been argued that at the time of availing the said facility, and since the loan was extended to fund the very acquisition of the said Property, Defendant No. 1 deposited with the Applicant Bank (i) the Original Registered Sale Deed dated 19.06.2000 executed by M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. in favour of Dr. G.C. Jain, being the immediately preceding link in the chain of title to the said property, and (ii) a Proposed Sale Deed to be executed by Dr. G.C. Jain in favour of defendant No.1 together with a specific undertaking to deposit the Original Sale Deed in his own name with the Applicant Bank as and when the same was executed and registered in his favour. It has further been argued that in breach of the said undertaking, and without the knowledge, consent, or No Objection of the Sd- Applicant Bank, defendant no.1 fraudulently alienated the mortgaged property to Defendant No.4 (Smt. Santosh Wasan) vide Sale Deed dated 23.03.2010 for a consideration of Rs.65,00,000/-, without discharging the outstanding loan or obtaining release of the Bank's charge. It has further been argued that upon Defendant Nos.1 to 3 committing default in repayment, the Applicant Bank issued a Loan Recall Notice dated 21.12.2009 calling upon them to pay Rs.1,04,73,581/- within seven days, which was not complied with and as per the Statement of Account dated 11.10.2011, a total sum of Rs.1,44,50,738.85/- (Rs. 1,37,30,101.85/- in Loan Account No. LBDEL00001379976 and Rs. 7,20,637/- in top-up Loan Account No. LBDEL00001756635) stood due and payable. It has further been argued that upon issuance of Notice dated 22.06.2010 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act (published in newspapers on 12.08.2010), Defendant No.1, vide reply dated 11.09.2010, falsely denied having mortgaged the said property with the Applicant Bank, while simultaneously disclosing, for the first time, that he had already sold the very same property to Defendant No.4 and defendant No. 4 thereafter issued her own notice dated 14.09.2010 asserting ownership and the Applicant Bank responded on 20.11.2010 and 27.11.2010 respectively, reiterating its subsisting charge over the said Property and the breach committed by Defendant No.1. It has Sd- further been argued that the present Original Application (now numbered TA/1698/2022) was accordingly filed seeking recovery of Rs.1,44,50,738.85/- with interest against Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and impleading Defendant No.4 on the ground that she is in possession of the mortgaged Property, having acquired the same in collusion with Defendant No.1 and in derogation of the Applicant Bank's prior charge. It has further been argued that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, having chosen not to contest the Original Application despite due opportunity, cannot be heard to dispute the sanction, disbursement, execution of the Facility Agreements, or the continuing default, all of which stand duly proved through the unrebuted testimony of AW-1 and Exhibits AW1/1 to AW1/15 and it is well settled that an ex-parte defendant forfeits the right to controvert the applicant's evidence, and a decree must follow on the strength of such unchallenged evidence, subject only to the Tribunal's satisfaction that the claim is otherwise made out. It has further been argued that the relief of a personal money decree against Defendant Nos.1 to 3 is entirely severable from, and independent of, the relief concerning enforcement of security over the said Property as against Defendant No.4 and even assuming, without admitting, that this Tribunal were to find any infirmity in the Applicant Bank's security interest, that would, at the highest, affect the mode of realisation of the sd- decretal amount qua the said Property, it would furnish no defence whatsoever to the personal liability of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as borrower and co-borrowers, who have admittedly availed and defaulted on the loan and the Applicant Bank is accordingly entitled to a full money decree against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, jointly and severally, in any event. It has further been argued that it is a settled position under Section 58 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 that an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds requires only three essentials: (i) a debt, (ii) deposit of documents of title to immovable property, and (iii) an intention that such deposit shall constitute security for the debt and all three essentials stand satisfied on the facts of the present case, there is an admitted debt arising from the sanctioned home loan, there was actual deposit of documents of title relating to the said Property, namely the Original Sale Deed dated 19.06.2000 together with the Proposed Sale Deed and the intention to create security is manifest from the Facility Agreements themselves, which record the said Property as security, coupled with the fact that the loan was disbursed for no purpose other than the purchase of that very Property. It has further been argued that the two judgments relied upon by Defendant No. 4, namely Haryana Financial Corporation v. Gurcharan Singh, 2014 ALL SCR 1438, and Bank of India v. Abhay D. Narottam & Ors., (2005) 11 SCC 520, are clearly Sd - distinguishable and do not assist her case and in both those decisions, the borrower had furnished no document of title whatsoever to the lender, the purported security rested solely on a bare undertaking not to alienate the property during the currency of the loan and it was in that specific factual context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a mere undertaking, unaccompanied by delivery of any title deed, is insufficient to create a mortgage. It has further been argued that the present case stands on a wholly different footing, Defendant No.1 did not merely promise, he actually deposited a genuine, registered document forming part of the chain of title to the said Property, together with a signed Proposed Sale Deed, and gave a further undertaking to complete the deposit upon registration in his own name. This is deposit of "documents of title" within the meaning of Section 58 (f), and is materially distinct from the bare, undocumented promise that fell for consideration in the authorities cited by Defendant No.4. It has further been argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its recent decision in The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 243, has reaffirmed that the doctrine of equitable mortgage exists precisely to prevent hyper technical objections from defeating a security where the intention of the parties to create a mortgage is clear, even in situations where the complete set of title documents is Sd- not, or cannot be, deposited. It has further been argued that the Court observed that depriving a lender of the benefit of a deposit of available title related documents merely because some other document is missing or incomplete would amount to an unfaithful dilution of the doctrine itself. It has further been argued that this principle applies with full force to the present facts, where the loan was purpose specific purchase finance, the vendor's own registered title deed was deposited, and Defendant No. 1 undertook to complete the deposit upon his own registration, an undertaking he then breached by secretly alienating the Property instead. It has further been argued that the failure of Defendant No.1 to hand over the completing document (the Sale Deed dated 07.08.2006 in his own favour) is, at the highest, evidence of his breach of a contractual undertaking owed to the Applicant Bank and it does not retrospectively erase the equitable mortgage that had already come into existence at the inception of the loan upon deposit of the available title documents coupled with clear intention and the two are conceptually distinct, creation of the mortgage, and a subsequent default in perfecting it further, are different questions, and Defendant No.4 conflates the two in order to construct a case of no mortgage at all. It has further been argued that it is a fundamental and well settled principle that a mortgagor, having created a charge over property in Sd - favour of a mortgagee, cannot thereafter convey to a third party a title higher or freer than what he himself possesses "nemo dat quod non habet". A sale by a mortgagor of mortgaged property, without discharging the mortgage debt or obtaining the mortgagee's release/No Objection, does not extinguish the mortgagee's rights, the transferee steps into the shoes of the mortgagor and takes the property subject to the subsisting charge, at best acquiring an equity of redemption. It has further been argued that the Defendant No.4 does not plead that she obtained any No Objection Certificate from the Applicant Bank prior to her purchase, or that the outstanding loan dues were cleared as a condition of the sale by Defendant No.1 in her favour. Her purchase, even if for genuine consideration actually paid to Defendant No. 1, a fact the Applicant Bank does not need to controvert for the purposes of this submission, cannot, without more, defeat the Applicant Bank's antecedent secured interest, which was created years prior to her purchase in 2010. The payment trail relied upon by Defendant No.4 establishes, at best, a private transaction between herself and Defendant No.1, it does not, and cannot, establish that such a transaction was valid and binding as against the Applicant Bank's pre-existing mortgage. It has further been argued that Sections 17, 19 and 22 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 confer on this *sd -*

Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate applications for recovery of debts and all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, and clothe the Tribunal with the powers of a civil court for that purpose. The allegation of fraud/collusion between Defendant Nos.1 and 4 has not been pleaded by the Applicant Bank as a free standing civil wrong, it has been pleaded solely to meet and explain Defendant No. 4's assertion of an independent, superior title to the mortgaged Property, and is thus inseparably bound up with the question of enforceability of the Applicant Bank's security, a question that lies at the very heart of the relief claimed in the Original Application. It has further been argued that it is only where a dispute is wholly independent of, and unconnected with, the debt or the security that recourse to a civil suit becomes necessary. Where, as here, the fraud plea is raised as an incident of, and defence to, a claim over the mortgaged security itself, this Tribunal is fully competent, indeed obligated, to examine and decide the same as part of adjudicating the Original Application. The objection of Defendant No. 4 to the contrary, if accepted, would permit any mortgagor and a colluding transferee to defeat a bank's secured claim merely by asserting a completed sale and demanding that the bank pursue a separate civil suit, thereby rendering the Tribunal's jurisdiction over secured claims Sd.

illusory. It has further been argued that the questions of (i) whether the deposit of the available title documents, coupled with the undertaking given, sufficed to create a valid equitable mortgage, (ii) whether Defendant No.4 had notice, actual or constructive, of the Applicant Bank's charge, and (iii) whether Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 acted in collusion, are all mixed questions of fact and law requiring appreciation of the evidence now on record from both sides, including the Facility Agreements, the loan documents, the SARFAESI correspondence, and the exhibits led by the Applicant Bank and such questions are inherently unsuited to summary rejection at the threshold and must be, and indeed have been, examined upon a full trial and final arguments, as has occurred in the present proceedings over the years. It has further been argued that the Defendant No.1's own conduct is telling: in his reply dated 11.09.2010 to the Applicant Bank's SARFAESI notice, he baldly denied ever having mortgaged the said Property, a denial squarely contradicted by his own execution of the Facility Agreements and admitted receipt and utilisation of the loan proceeds while, in the same breath, disclosing that he had already sold the very same Property to Defendant No.4. It has further been argued that a person under no mortgage obligation would have no occasion to falsely deny a mortgage while simultaneously revealing an undisclosed alienation of the Sd - very asset held out as security and this conduct is itself probative of a design to defeat the Applicant Bank's security, and reinforces the Applicant Bank's case that the transfer in favour of Defendant No.4 was not a bonafide, arm's length transaction free of notice of the Bank's charge. Accordingly, it has been prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to Decree the Original Application in favour of the Applicant Bank and against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, jointly and severally, for a sum of Rs. 1,44,50,738.85/- together with interest thereon as claimed, from the date of filing of the Original Application till realization and to hold and declare that a valid and subsisting equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds exists in favour of the Applicant Bank over the property bearing Plot No. 876-B, Block-A, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon and also hold that the Sale Deed dated 23.03.2010 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.4 is subject to, and does not defeat, the Applicant Bank's prior charge over the said property, and permit realisation of the decretal amount by sale of the said property free of the said transfer, or in the alternative, direct Defendant No.4 to redeem the mortgage by clearing the outstanding dues as a condition of retaining the said property. Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The sd - Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs Central Bank of India & Ors. 2025 INSC 243.

13. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the defendant no.4 that the Defendant No.4 is neither the borrower nor the guarantor nor the mortgagor of her property bearing Plot No.876-B, Block-A, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon and the defendant No. 4 is the registered, legal and valid owner of the property in question to the knowledge of the applicant bank much prior to the date of filing of the O.A. It has further been argued that the Defendant No.4 is in peaceful possession of the property in question and the original title deed i.e. the original registered sale deed dated 07.08.2006 executed between Shri G.C. Jain (the allottee) / the 1st owner in favour of defendant No.1/Shri Kulbhushan Grover / principal borrower (the claimed mortgagor and borrower) and the original registered sale deed dated 23.03.2010 executed by Shri Kulbhushan Grover/principal borrower in favour of defendant No.4/Smt. Santosh Wasan together with originals of all other relevant documents are not in possession of the applicant bank but in possession of defendant No.4 / Santosh Wasan and the applicant bank does not possess the aforesaid documents in original. It has further been argued that the applicant bank admits that both the aforesaid original sale deeds were never deposited with it till date. It has further been argued that from Sd- the pleadings of the O.A. it is apparent that the applicant bank claims alleged charge of the property in question of the defendant No.4 on the basis of deposit of title deeds by Sh. Kulbhushan Grover i.e. the borrower and from the pleadings in para 5 (vi) and (vii) (at pages 5 and 6 of the O.A.) and from the notice dated 22.06.2010 issued under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act (at page 124-126 at list of documents filed by applicant bank), the applicant bank claims its purported charge on the property of defendant No.4 on the basis that the borrower i.e. defendant no.1 purportedly deposited /submitted the title deed and other documents in respect of the property in question with it and it is pertinent to state that the said notice under section 13 (2) dated 22.06.2010 was admittedly never issued to defendant No. 4. It has further been argued that in the pleadings of same paras 5 (vi) and (vii), the applicant bank is claiming its purported charge on the property in question merely on the basis of one purported "proposed sale deed to be executed by Dr. G.C. Jain in favour of Sh. Kulbhushan Grover, defendant No. 1 herein, and had promised to deposit with applicant bank.....". Thus, the purported charge has been claimed by the bank merely on a proposed sale deed which was never in existence on the date of the agreement or when the purported payment must have been disbursed by the applicant bank. It has further been argued that from the Sd- pleadings of the O.A. and particular para 5 (vi) and (vii) the only allegation made by the applicant bank against defendant No.4 and her property in question is that the defendant No.1 has played a big fraud with the applicant bank in conspiracy with defendant No.4 and thus the entire allegation devolves upon the issue of fraud played upon the bank. (Pages 5 and 6 of the O.A.). It has further been argued that from the pleadings it is also apparent that the applicant bank throughout the O.A. admits that the most important title documents i.e. the original registered sale deed dated 07.08.2006 between Dr. G.C. Jain / 1st owner and defendant No.1/2nd owner and the original sale deed dated 23.03.2010 between defendant No.1/2nd owner and defendant No.4 were never deposited with and not in possession of the applicant bank. It has further been argued that the entire allegations as against defendant No.4 and her property in question as alleged by applicant bank are that of fraud and conspiracy and it is pertinent to note that neither any particulars nor any facts have been pleaded in the O.A. or shown or proved by the applicant bank, as per the requirement of Order 6 Rule 4 of CPC as to what is the fraud and conspiracy of which the applicant bank has alleged and it is now settled position in law that the general procedures of CPC 1908 is applicable at least as regards the pleadings are concerned. As per Order 6 Rule 4 CPC the pleading must categorically and Sd- explicitly provide the particulars, with dates wherever necessary, of each and every fact of any purported fraud or conspiracy. The same is explicitly missing in the pleading of the O.A. It has further been argued that it is now a well settled position in law that this Tribunal is not a civil court and does not pass a decree [as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd vs Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp (Civil Appeal No. 4796 of 2009)] and thus, the allegations of fraud and conspiracy raised by the applicant bank as against defendant No.4 and her property in no manner can either be adjudicated or decided by this Tribunal; thus this Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction to decide the allegations of fraud and conspiracy. It has further been argued that the Hon'ble DRAT-Madras in the case of Syndicate Bank versus India Machinery Corporation and Ors. (II (2003) BC 79) has categorically held that the plea /allegations of fraud /conspiracy cannot be agitated in DRT forum and thus DRT has no jurisdiction to try the original application against defendant No. 4 and her property in question at least as regards the allegations of fraud and without prejudice to the aforesaid and foregoing it is further submitted respectfully that even if this Tribunal decides the said issue, admittedly there is no pleading in the entire O.A. as to what is the alleged fraud, how the alleged fraud has been committed etc. It has further been Sd- argued that it is not the case of the applicant bank that any police complaint or FIR was lodged by the applicant bank against defendant No.4 on the allegation of alleged fraud and thus, the said allegations have been made only for the sake of making allegations only to somehow implead defendant No.4. It has further been argued that admittedly Ex. AW1/5 is the sale deed executed by Ansal Properties in favour of one Dr. G.C. Jain and the said document is not in favour of Mr. Kulbhushan Grover/defendant No.1/principal borrower/the claimed mortgagor. It has further been argued that in the pleading of the O.A. it is the case of the applicant bank that the purported mortgage of the property in question has been created by defendant No.1 by deposit of title deeds and it is a settled position in law that no mortgage by way of deposit of the title deed can be validly created if the title document is not in favour of depositor and in the instant case admittedly Ex. AW1/5 (copy of sale deed dated 19.06.2000) is not in favour of Mr. Kulbhushan Grover/the depositor/the alleged mortgagor. It has further been argued that the said sale deed (Ex. AW1/5) is executed by M/s Ansal Properties and it was disclosed to defendant No.4 by defendant No.1 that the same was not in possession of defendant No.1 as not provided by Dr. G.C. Jain and in any event the same is of no consequence as for mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds, the most Sd- important document is the document in favour of mortgagor / the owner of the property who deposits the same with the bank. It has further been argued that in the instant case, the most important document which should have been deposited and should have been in possession of the applicant bank is Exhibit DW4/3 i.e. sale deed dated 07.08.2006 (executed by Dr. G.C. Jain in favour of Kulbhushan Grover) and not any other document and it is the own case of the applicant bank that defendant No.1 is the mortgagor and not Dr. G.C. Jain and thus without prejudice to the aforesaid and foregoing it is stated that said document Ex. AW1/5 is of no help to the applicant bank in claiming purported charge on the property by way of deposit of title deed and the said property in question belongs to defendant No. 4 and thus, it is clear beyond doubt that applicant bank in no manner in law can claim charge on the property in question on the basis of deposit of Ex. AW1/5. It has further been argued that the applicant bank also heavily relies upon Ex.AW1/6 i.e. proposed sale deed to be executed between Dr. G.C. Jain and Defendant No.1 and if the said document is perused the same only bears purported signatures of defendant No.1 and further the said document is no document of title in the eyes of law. It has further been argued that a proposed sale deed is only a proposal and / or undertaking and does not devolve any ownership rights qua sd-

the property in question in favour of defendant No.1 and it does not give any title qua the property and as such reliance on the said document Ex.AW1/6 is misplaced and has no relevance in the eyes of law and thus no mortgage or charge flows from the said document as the said document in no stretch of interpretation is either a sale deed or a title document. It has further been argued that applicant bank has relied upon Master Facility Agreement dated 31.07.2006 (Ex. AW1/3 at pages 26-53 of the documents filed by the bank) and another Master facility agreement dated 05.03.2009 (Ex. AW1/4 at pages 57-96 of the documents filed by the applicant bank) and if this Tribunal peruses the master facility agreement dated 31.07.2006 (Ex. AW1/3) and at page 39, at Clause 34 of the document it is mentioned that where any security in relation to any property required to be registered under the law for the time being in force, the borrower shall within 10 days from the date of creation of such security register with the appropriate registering authority and submit original security document to ICICI Bank. Further, at para 39 it is provided that any transfer and parting with the possession of the property shall be deemed to be criminal breach of trust and cheating by borrower and ICICI Bank shall be entitled to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the borrower. However, admittedly the applicant bank never took deposit and the title Sd- document in favour of defendant No. 1 duly registered was never deposited with the applicant bank. Further, as per the Master Facility Agreement dated 05.03.2009, it becomes apparent that the said agreement was entered into after gap of almost three years of the agreement dated 31.07.2006 i.e. Ex. AW1/3. Further, vide this agreement dated 05.03.2009 (Ex. AW1/4) the applicant bank provided the top up loan for a sum of Rs.5,61,712/- and it is surprising that after the agreement dated 31.07.2006 (Ex. AW1/3), without even defendant No.1 depositing the title document in original and without even creating equitable mortgage, the defendant no.1 availed the second loan / top up loan in March 2009. Even in the said top up loan Ex. AW1/4 dated 05.03.2009 at page 81 similar provisions are provided as Clause 35 and 39 i.e. deposit of title documents within seven days and for initiating appropriate criminal proceedings against the borrower. However, again no criminal case has been filed by the applicant bank and this Tribunal may take judicial notice of the fact that without even equitable mortgage being created and without even deposit of any purported title document, after a gap of three years, the top up loan was granted and despite the explicit terms in the agreement no effort whatsoever was made by the bank to seek deposit of the original title documents. Admittedly, even after 07.08.2006, the original sale deed Ex. DW4/3 was never Sd- deposited with the bank by defendant No.1 and despite this fact, as is apparent from Ex. AW1/4 (purported master facility agreement dated 05.03.2009) the title document i.e.Ex. DW4/3 was yet never deposited in the year 2009. It has further been argued that despite there being no deposit of title deeds in 2006, the applicant bank still granted top up loan in 2009 and thus, on the contrary it is defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 and the officials of applicant bank who have connived and conspired with each other and it is surprising that while on one hand the financial facilities were extended and on the other hand the most important and vital title document i.e. Ex. DW4/3, so as to claim purported charge by deposit of title deeds, was neither insisted upon nor ensured nor taken in deposit by the applicant bank. It has further been argued that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the applicant bank, in fact supports the case of the defendant no.4, inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held therein that an agreement of sale creates no interest in the property; that under Section 58 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act a mortgage by deposit of title deeds is a legal mortgage for which deposit of all the title deeds is mandatory except those which despite best efforts could not be deposited or were not known to be outstanding; and that an equitable mortgage, at best, operates only in personam as *sd-*

---

a charge which cannot be enforced against a transferee for consideration without notice, and is liable to be postponed where the lender, by its own gross negligence, failed to secure the title deeds or to put the world to notice. Accordingly, it has been prayed for dismissal of the original application against the defendant no.4 qua the property in question and for release of the property in question. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.4 has relied upon certain citations of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble High Court of Madras i.e., (i) Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Anr. (2014 (1) AWC 212 (SC), (ii) Bank of India Vs. Abhay D. Narottam & Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 520, (iii) M/s Moneyline Credit Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. – Ex. FA No. 13/2013 dated 23.09.2014 Delhi High Court and (iv) V. Venkataramayya Pantulu Vs. B. Narasingha Raw and Ors (1911) 21 MLJ 454.

14. The issues before this Tribunal are (i) whether the property in question was validly mortgaged with the applicant bank by deposit of title deeds or not; (ii) whether the applicant bank has any mortgage or charge over the property in question which is enforceable as against the defendant no.4; and (iii) whether the defendant no.4 is a bonafide purchaser of the property in question for value without notice or not. Apparently, as per the version of the applicant bank, the sd- defendant No.1 (Sh. Kulbhushan Grover) along with defendants nos.2 and 3 as co-borrowers, approached the Applicant Bank for grant of home loan facilities for purchase of property in question and pursuant thereto, the Applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed financial assistance vide Loan Account Nos.LBDEL00001379976 and LBDEL00001756635, under Facility Agreements dated 31.07.2006 and 05.03.2009 respectively, for the specific and sole purpose of enabling Defendant No.1 to acquire the said Property and the said property stood mortgaged to the Applicant Bank as security for both facilities. Further, at the time of availing the said facility, and since the loan was extended to fund the very acquisition of the said Property, Defendant No.1 deposited with the Applicant Bank (i) the Original Registered Sale Deed dated 19.06.2000 executed by M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. in favour of Dr. G.C. Jain, being the immediately preceding link in the chain of title to the said property, and (ii) a Proposed Sale Deed to be executed by Dr. G.C. Jain in favour of defendant No.1 together with a specific undertaking to deposit the Original Sale Deed in his own name with the Applicant Bank as and when the same was executed and registered in his favour. However, in breach of the said undertaking, and without the knowledge, consent, or No Objection of the Applicant Bank, defendant no.1 alienated the property to Sd- Defendant No.4 (Smt. Santosh Wasan) vide Sale Deed dated 23.03.2010, without discharging the outstanding loan and thereafter upon Defendant Nos.1 to 3 committing default in repayment, the Applicant Bank issued a Loan Recall Notice dated 21.12.2009 and also issued Notice dated 22.06.2010 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act (published in newspapers on 12.08.2010) and the Defendant No.1, vide reply dated 11.09.2010, denied having mortgaged the said property with the Applicant Bank, while disclosing that he had already sold the said property to Defendant No.4. As per the version of the defendant no.4, she had purchased the property in question from the defendant no.1 vide registered sale deed dated 23.03.2010 executed by Shri Kulbhushan Grover/principal borrower in favour of defendant No.4/Smt. Santosh Wasan and the defendant no.4 is in possession of the entire chain of the original title documents i.e. the original registered sale deed dated 07.08.2006 executed by Shri G.C. Jain (the allottee)/the 1st owner in favour of defendant No.1/Shri Kulbhushan Grover (Ex. DW4/3) and the original registered sale deed dated 23.03.2010 executed by Shri Kulbhushan Grover/principal borrower in favour of defendant No.4/Smt. Santosh Wasan.

15. Before proceeding further in the present matter, we may go through the following judgements and statutory provisions.

Sd-

16. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation vs Gurcharan Singh And Anr (decided on 13 December, 2013) has held as under:

".....13. In Bank of India (supra), this Court was examining the scope of undertaking made for creating an equitable charge over a flat in favour of the Bank. This Court held that without a transfer of interest, there is no question of there being a mortgage and that mere undertaking is not sufficient to create a charge. The ratio laid down by the above-mentioned judgment applies to the present case. In our view, the mere undertaking that the party will not dispose of the properties mentioned in an undertaking, during the currency of the loan, will not create any charge over those properties, unless charge is created by deposit of title deeds or through a registered document. We also hold that even if the purpose of the decree obtained in Civil Suit No.767 of 1995 between the respondents was fraudulent and collusive one so to defeat the undertaking made on 5.3.1994, that would not confer any charge over the properties, unless the undertaking is registered. We, therefore, find no error in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court which was affirmed by the High Court...."

17. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Bank of India Vs. Abhay D. Narottam & Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 520 has held as under:

10. As far as the land is concerned, we agree with the learned Judge that a mere undertaking to create mortgage is not sufficient to create any interest in any immovable property....

18. Further, we may also go through Sections 58 (f) and 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:

Section 58 (f) – Mortgage by deposit of title-deeds:—

Where a person in any of the following towns, namely, the towns of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, and in any other town which the State Government concerned may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title to immoveable property, with intent to create a security thereon, the transaction is called a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds.

Sd/-

**Section 100:-**

Where immovable property of one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, the latter person is said to have a charge on the property; and all the provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to such charge.

Nothing in this section applies to the charge of a trustee on the trust-property for expenses properly incurred in the execution of his trust, and, save as otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge.

19. In the present matter, the applicant bank is claiming that the property in question is mortgaged with it by deposit of the Original Registered Sale Deed dated 19.06.2000 executed by M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. in favour of Dr. G.C. Jain (being the immediately preceding link in the chain of title to the said property) and a Proposed Sale Deed to be executed by Dr. G.C. Jain in favour of defendant No.1 together with a specific undertaking to deposit the Original Sale Deed in his own name with the Applicant Bank as and when the same was executed and registered in his favour. On perusal of the records, it appears that the applicant bank is claiming to have the registered sale deed dated 19.06.2000 executed by M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. in favour of Dr. G.C. Jain; however, as per the documents placed on record, Dr. G.C. Jain is neither borrower nor guarantor/mortgagor to the applicant bank and he has not availed any loan facilities from the Sd- applicant bank. Though, he was the proposed vendor of the property in question in favour of the defendant no.1, the applicant bank has failed to file any sale deed executed in the name of its borrower. However, it has been argued on behalf of the applicant bank that the defendant no.1 has committed fraud with the applicant bank by not depositing the sale deed. Further, as per the loan documents filed by the applicant bank i.e. Master Facility Agreement dated 31.07.2006 (Ex. AW1/3 at pages 26-53) and Master Facility Agreement dated 05.03.2009 (Ex. AW1/4 at pages 57-96), where any security in relation to any property was required to be registered under the law for the time being in force, the borrower was required, within 10 days from the date of creation of such security, to register the same with the appropriate registering authority and submit the original security document to ICICI Bank and further, at para 39 it is mentioned that any transfer and parting with the possession of the property shall be deemed to be criminal breach of trust and cheating by the borrower and ICICI Bank shall be entitled to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the borrower. However, on perusal of the documents, it appears that the applicant bank has failed to file any documentary evidence to show that the applicant bank has lodged any criminal case/FIR against the defendant no.1 for not submitting the original registered sale deed executed by sd- Dr. G.C. Jain in favour of defendant No.1 and even the applicant bank had not taken any steps to inform the concerned Sub-Registrar not to create or register any further conveyance document/sale deed with respect to the property in question. Further, this Tribunal has also failed to understand that when there were no title documents pertaining to the creation of mortgage with respect to the property in question, then how the applicant bank further granted a top up loan for a sum of Rs.5,61,712/- vide agreement dated 05.03.2009 (Ex. AW1/4) to the same defendant no.1 after a gap of about three years from granting the aforesaid loan facility vide agreement dated 31.07.2006, and such conduct of the applicant bank is highly deprecated by this Tribunal. Though the applicant bank is relying upon the aforesaid proposed Sale Deed to be executed by Dr. G.C. Jain in favour of defendant No.1 together with a specific undertaking, but these documents cannot be termed as title documents for creation of mortgage in the light of the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haryana Financial Corporation vs Gurcharan Singh And Anr, Bank of India Vs. Abhay D. Narottam & Ors. and The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs Central Bank of India & Ors. Thus, in terms of Section 58 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the aforesaid judgements, this Tribunal is of the affirmed view that no valid mortgage qua the property in Sd-

---

question was created in favour of the applicant bank while advancing the loan facilities to the defendants no.1 to 3 in the year 2006 or in the year 2009, and accordingly, the claim of the applicant bank of a mortgage/charge qua the property in question, which is owned by the defendant no.4, is bad in law.

20. Apparently, the defendant no.4 is claiming to be the owner of the property in question by way of registered sale deed dated 23.03.2010 executed by Shri Kulbhushan Grover/principal borrower in favour of defendant No.4/Smt. Santosh Wasan, and the defendant no.4 is in possession of the original title documents of the property in question i.e. original registered sale deed dated 07.08.2006 executed by Shri G.C. Jain (the original allottee/the 1st owner) in favour of defendant No.1/Shri Kulbhushan Grover and the original registered sale deed dated 23.03.2010 executed by Shri Kulbhushan Grover/principal borrower in favour of defendant No.4/Smt. Santosh Wasan. The defendant no.4 Smt. Santosh Wasan has purchased the property in question vide registered sale deed dated 23.03.2010 from defendant no.1 Shri Kulbhushan Grover after paying the entire consideration, and at the time of registration of the aforesaid sale deed dated 23.03.2010 the applicant bank had not informed the Sub-Registrar not to register any further conveyance qua the property in question Sd- and thus the defendant No.4 is the bonafide purchaser of the property in question and the defendant No.4/Santosh Wasan is having legal, valid and enforceable rights over the property in question i.e. plot No 876-B, Block A, Sushant Lok, Phase -I, Gurugram (Haryana) and in this regard the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s Moneyline Credit Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar &Ors. – Ex. FA No. 13/2013 dated 23.09.2014 has held as under:

"....4. In my opinion, in this case the provision of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 will also go against the appellant because respondent nos.1 and 2 can be said to be bonafide purchasers for value by paying consideration because the appellant at no point of time took steps to inform the DDA not to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos.1 and 2/subsequent purchasers i.e the conveyance deed in favour the legal heirs of the original allottee Sh.S. Appale Swami. The case of the respondents/objectors before me is that if the appellant had informed the DDA that a 'mortgage' has been created in its favour, assuming that mortgage could be created only by giving/depositing possession of the allotment letter and possession letter, then, the position would not have come to the present stage whereby a conveyance deed would have been executed in favour of the legal heirs of Sh. S. Appale Swami and who thereafter on the basis of that conveyance deed sold the suit property to the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein by means of the sale deed dated 20.1.2009, and consequently which resulted in the respondent nos.1 and 2/objectors becoming bonafide purchasers for value without notice of any rights existing in favour of the appellant herein..."

5. In the peculiar facts of the present case, and taking into account that there is no mortgage by deposit of the original title deed in favour of the appellant and that respondent nos.1 and 2 are bonafide purchasers and respondent no.3 thereafter has by taking mortgage of the property advanced loan to the respondent nos.1 and 2, the trial court was justified in holding that no mortgage was created in favour of the appellant..."

Sd-

21. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs Central Bank of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 243) to contend that the deposit of the sale deed dated 19.06.2000 and the proposed sale deed created an equitable mortgage in favour of the applicant bank. However, on a careful reading of the said judgment as a whole, this Tribunal finds that the said judgment, far from coming to the rescue of the applicant bank, squarely supports the case of the defendant no.4. In Cosmos (supra), the Central Bank of India, which had advanced the loan on the strength of unregistered agreements of sale and without the title document (share certificate), was held to have, at best, an "equitable mortgage" which was postponed to, and held unenforceable against, the subsequent party who held the actual title document and who had no notice of the equitable mortgage. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs Central Bank of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 243) are reproduced hereunder:

"20. Without any doubt in our mind, we say that the High Court fell in error more particularly, in view of, what has been observed in para 8 of the impugned order. The law is very well settled as explained by this Court in Suraj Lamp (supra) that a contract of sale i.e. an agreement of sale does not itself create any interest in or charge on any property. This is evident on plain reading of Section 54 of the Act, 1884 which we have referred to above.

Sd-

21. In the aforesaid context, the decision of this Court in Abhay D. Narottam (supra) is also relevant more particularly the observations made in para 11 therein. ....

43. Thus, where 'equitable mortgages' have been created based on deposit of part-deeds or documents purporting title or evincing intention of parties to create an interest, all such deposits will be a valid mortgage in equity and the charge that might have been created prior in time will assume priority over any subsequent charges or mortgagors. However, since such a mortgage is an 'equitable mortgage' any rights flowing from such mortgages are only of personal character and only rights in personam and as such will not operate against any strangers or subsequent incumbrancers unaware of such equitable mortgage. This stems from the rule that equity acts only in personam. The very basis for creation of an 'equitable mortgage' is the intention of parties alone, and as such any action or remedy can be directed only against the parties so involved. This is because, unlike a legal mortgage where a 'charge' is created directly on the property itself and the title or any proprietary interest therein is transferred to the lender thereby becoming a right enforceable in rem in respect to the property, in case of an 'equitable mortgage' no such charge is said to have been formally created on the property nor any transfer or conveyance of interest has said to occur. Rather on the contrary, the de jure title or ownership continues to vest with the original borrower and only the documents thereof is ordinarily retained by the lender and as such the right of the lender in such a situation is being enforced through the party having title over the said property alone i.e., the borrower and thus is only a right in personam. ....

52 .....At this stage, we may clarify that deposit of part-deeds of title would not constitute a mortgage in terms of Section 58 sub-section (e) of the Act, 1882 unlike English Law, because under the latter such deposit is only an equitable mortgage and thus, the strict rigidities may not be imposed or insisted upon whereas in India mortgage by deposit of title deeds is a legal mortgage which in effect would defeat any equitable mortgage, and thus, the requirement to deposit all title deeds would have to mandatorily be required.....

22. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cosmos (supra) to the facts of the case in hand, this Tribunal finds that no mortgage was ever created in favour of the applicant bank. That the Proposed Sale Deed (Ex. AW1/6) is, Sd-

at its highest, an agreement to transfer the property to the defendant no.1 in future, and as held in Cosmos (supra) at paras 20 to 22 and 25, an agreement of sale does not create any interest in or charge on the property. Further, on the date of the execution of the aforesaid Master Facility Agreement dated 31.07.2006 (Ex. AW1/3), the defendant no.1 had no title in the property in question, which he acquired only vide sale deed dated 07.08.2006 (Ex. DW4/3), and thus there is as such no question of the applicant bank having any charge over such non-existent interest. That the Sale Deed dated 19.06.2000 (Ex. AW1/5) stands in the name of Dr. G.C. Jain, who is a stranger to the loan facility, whereas the essence of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds is the handing over by the borrower of the title deeds "*of his property*". Further, valid equitable mortgage cannot be created by depositing the title deeds of a third party who is entirely extraneous to the credit facility and such creation of security interest over the said property is bad in law. Further, as held at paras 49 and 52 of the aforesaid judgment, in India a mortgage under Section 58 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act is a legal mortgage requiring deposit of all title deeds, except those which despite best efforts could not be deposited or were not known to be outstanding. That the sale deed dated 07.08.2006, the only title document of the defendant no.1, was admittedly known to the applicant bank Sd- to be outstanding, was never deposited, and was never even demanded for over three years, the applicant bank having instead granted a top-up loan on 05.03.2009 (Ex. AW1/4). That the applicant bank has failed to prove that defendant No.4 had any notice of the alleged mortgage/charge of the bank on the property in question. Hence, no mortgage by deposit of title deeds was ever created qua the property in question. The registered title of the defendant no.4 is the dominant title over the unregistered security claimed by the applicant bank. A lender which fails to bring its equitable mortgage to the notice of the subsequent party is not entitled to enforce the same. Thus, the judgment in *Cosmos* (*supra*), relied upon by the applicant bank, in fact fully supports the case of the defendant no.4 that the property in question is not mortgaged with the applicant bank and is free from any enforceable charge of the applicant bank. Further, the Defendant No.4 exercised the utmost due diligence expected of a prudent purchaser and is fully protected as a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. As enunciated in *Moneyline* (*supra*), where a banking institution fails to take requisite steps to register or secure its alleged charge before the competent registering authority, it cannot subsequently prejudice an innocent third party. Furthermore, the Defendant No.4 is squarely protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and owing to Sd/- the applicant bank's clear acquiescence and omission to record its encumbrance. Thus, having taken reasonable care and conducted proper verification of the public records to ascertain the transferor's authority, the Defendant No.4's title stands legally protected.

23. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case and after taking into consideration the aforesaid judgements/citations relied upon by the applicant bank as well as the defendant no.4, this Tribunal is of the affirmed view that the property in question was never validly mortgaged with the applicant bank; whereas the defendant no.4 has succeeded to prove that she is the bonafide purchaser of the property in question and defendant No.4/Santosh Wasan is also having legal, valid and enforceable rights over the property in question i.e. Plot No.876-B, Block-A, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon (Haryana). Thus, the defendant no.4 is liable to be discharged from the array of parties of the present case and accordingly No.4 stands discharged from the array of parties and the property in question i.e. Plot No.876-B, Block-A, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon (Haryana), which is owned by the defendant no.4/Smt. Santosh Wasan, also stands released. However, the sd- applicant bank is entitled to recover its entire dues from the defendants no.1 to 3 as per law.

24. The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. as against the defendants no.1 to 3. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved against the defendants no.1 to 3 only.

25. The case filed by the applicant bank has gone unrebutted against the defendants no.1 to 3 and there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the applicant bank as against them. The applicant bank has proved its case only against the defendants no.1 to 3; however, no case has been made out by the applicant bank against the defendant no.4 or the property in question.

26. In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed only against the defendants no.1 to 3 and is liable to be dismissed against the defendant no.4.

ORDER

(i) I, allow this O.A and direct the defendants no.1 to 3 to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.1,44,50,738.85 (Rupees One crores Forty Four lacs Fifty Thousand Seven hundred Thirty Eight &

*sd-*

paisa Eighty Five only) as on 11.10.2011 together with pendent lite and future interest @24% rate from the date of filing of this application till its realization with costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the movable and immovable properties of the defendants no.1 to 3. While disposing off the said original application, various I.A filed by parties in the matter also stands disposed off. It is also ordered that no case is made out in favour of applicant bank against the defendant no.4 and thus, the defendant no.4 is not liable to pay the dues to the applicant bank. Accordingly, the present Transfer/original application stands dismissed against the defendant no.4 and defendant no.4 hereby stands discharged/deleted from the array of parties and her property in question i.e. Plot No.876-B, Block-A, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon (Haryana) stands released in view of the observations made in the body of this judgment. It is hereby held that Defendant No.4, Smt. Santosh Wasan, is the bonafide owner of the property in question, specifically described as Plot No.876-B, Block-A, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon (Haryana).

(ii) The Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith against the defendants no.1 to 3 only and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

Sd-

T.A. No. 1698 of 2022

(iii) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Delhi on 08.12.2026.

(iv) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

Sd- *Govind Ballabh Sharma* **(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-I, DELHI**

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

Dated: 05.10.2026.

P