PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs Rajender Kumar on 8 May 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 07.09.2011 before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,31,099/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty One Thousand Ninety Nine only) as on 06.09.2011 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum with monthly rests from 07.09.2011 till the date of realization and costs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 and 2 as co-borrowers vide their loan application dated 19.07.2008, the applicant bank sanctioned housing loan for a sum of Rs.14,90,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lacs Ninety Thousand only) on 09.08.2008 against mortgage of property bearing No.2, Block and Pocket B-2, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi. The applicant bank disbursed an amount of Rs.13.50 lacs on 11.08.2008 to borrowers and Rs.1.40 lacs towards renovation work disbursed in two installments of Rs.0.70 lac each on 23.08.2008 & 03.09.2008. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the housing loan facility sanctioned by applicant bank in favour of defendant no.1 and 2.

3. It has further been submitted on behalf of the applicant bank that in order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 and 2 submitted loan application and executed Agreement of Term Loan for Immovable Property (Doc-6) on

09.08.2008 etc. and in addition, the defendant no.3 executed Agreement of Continuing Guarantee in favour of applicant bank. It has further been submitted that in order to secure the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 & 2 created equitable mortgage of property bearing No.2, Block and Pocket B-2, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi by depositing original title deeds of the property on 03.02.2009 with the applicant bank, which was confirmed by defendant no.1 by executing and delivering letter dated 16.02.2009.

4. It has further been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 to 3 failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to deposit overdue installments with the applicant bank despite regular follow up and accordingly, the account was classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2010 and issued the legal notice dated 19.08.2011 for Rs.20,04,417/-, hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

5. Notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 30.06.2010 was issued but defendant no.1 to 3 neglected the same. Notices of this O.A. were also issued to the defendant no.1 to 3 and despite proper service, the defendant no.1 to 3 have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 09.08.2012, the defendant no.1 to 3 have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor filed the written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets.

6. The defendant no.4 filed the written statement and submitted therein that he has purchased the mortgaged property from Sh.Rajeev Mathur vide registered sale deed on 04.11.2010 and submitted certified copy of entire chain since allotments along with affidavit of evidence. The applicant bank has filed photocopy of title deeds of alleged mortgaged property which includes conveyance deed dated 02.04.1999 fvg. Smt.Suman Sachdeva, original owner of property which sold the same to Sh.Rajinder Kumar Dang vide registered sale deed dated 04.06.1999 who sold to Sh.Ramesh Kumar Bansal on 22.01.2003 vide registered sale deed. Shri Ramesh Bansal sold to Ms.Pushpa Rani on 17.04.2003 who in turn sold it to Ms.Simro Devi on 20.04.2005, sold to Sh.Rajeev Mathur, on 22.01.2010 and the applicant herein purchased it from Sh.Rajeev Mathur on 04.11.2010. On the direction of Hon'ble DRAT, Shri Rajeev Mathur deposited dues of Rs.21.56 lacs of SBBJ as per submission made by the applicant herein along with enhanced amount of Rs.6.00 lacs and SBBJ issued NOC on 15.05.2011 and thus, defendant no.4 claiming having original chain of title documents of the mortgaged property. On the direction of this Tribunal, records of conveyance deed in favour of Ms.Suman Sachdeva from DDA were recalled for genuineness of the deed.

7. The matter was heard on 03.02.2015 by the Ld. DRT-III Delhi and it was recorded that: The sole question raised before this Tribunal by the Ld.Counsel for the defendant no.4 is the genuineness of the conveyance deed by which the mortgage has been created in favour of the applicant bank on the ground that defendant no.4 has purchased the property in question from one Smt.Suman Sachdeva on 24.04.1999 who is the original owner of the property bearing No.B-2/2, ground floor, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi admeasuring 60 sq.metres. Smt.Suman Sachdeva has sold the property in question to Sh.Rajinder Kr.Dang vide registered sale deed s d dt.04.06.1999 who in turn sold the same to Sh.Ramesh Kumar bansal on 22.01.2003 vide registered sale deed. Sh.Ramesh Kr. Bansal sold the said property in question to Ms.Pushpa Rani by way of registered sale deed on 17.04.2003, who in turn sold the same to Ms.Simro Devi on 24.04.2005 by way of registered sale deed, who in turn sold the same to Shri Rajeev Mathur by way of registered sale deed dt 22.01.2010 and the applicant herein has purchased the property in question from Shri Rajeev Mathur by way of registered sale deed dated 04.11.2010. It is brought to the notice of this Tribunal that this property was subject to mortgage with the SBBJ and on declaration of their account as NPA, this tribunal has directed Shri Rajeev Mathur, then having purchased the said property by way of registered sale deed to deposit the amount with the SBBJ and in fact he has deposited the dues amounting to Rs.21.56 lacs with the SBBJ as per submission made by the Ld.Counsel for the defendant no.4. thereafter, the Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi has enhanced the amount to Rs.6 lacs more than same has also been deposited by Shri Rajeev Mathur and NOC has been issued by the SBBJ on 15.05.2011. Thus, according to the Ld.Counsel for the defendant no.4, they are having the original chain of title documents. He has also filed the certified copy of the conveyance deed. The Ld.Counsel for the defendant no.4 has drawn by attention to page no.62 whereby the applicant bank is claiming mortgage, that there is a different photograph of Ms.Suman Sachdeva. Heard both the parties, perused the records and this Tribunal is of the view that no doubt both the sale deeds might have been registered with the sub-Registrar and Sub Registrar is not responsible for genuinity of the document as he is simply a registering authority. This Tribunal is of the view that let record from DDA be called for in regards to the conveyance deed in favour of Ms.Suman Sachdeva in respect of property bearing no.B-2/2, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi No.F-15(782)/84. Issue notice to the concerned DDA office for the next date of hearing. The concerned officer of the DDA is hereby directed to bring the records of conveyance deed in favour of Ms.Suman Sachdeva in respect of property bearing no.B-2/2, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi No.F-15(782)/84 on the next date of hearing. Registry is directed to issue notice accordingly. Matter be listed on 28.04.2015 for further proceedings.

8. While hearing the matter, the then Presiding Officer of Ld. DRT-III, Delhi held not being satisfied the earlier statement recorded by the Ld. Predecessor and recalled the record again from DDA, Delhi along with Conveyance Deed. Shri Vijay Kumar Arora brought the records and the Hon'ble Tribunal observed on 03.01.2020 that: Sh.Vijay Kmar Arora s/o late Sh.Raj Kumar Arora, Age 59, working as ASO in LAB Rohini, DDA INA Vikas Sadan, Delhi. I have brought the requisite record pertaining to Plot No.2, Pocket-2, Block B, Sector-16, 16 sq.mtrs. Rohini Residential Scheme, Delhi. In the present matter, demand letter dated 25.03.1985/29.03.1985 for the allotment of the flat was issued in favour of Sh.G.S.Minhas s/o late 5d-

Sh.Major Bhulla Singh i.e. copy of the same is exhibit as Ex.CW-1. The conveyance deed was issued in the name of Suman Sachdeva w/o Sh.Mohan Lal, House No.2, B-2, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110085 on 23.02.1999. However, on the top of the same no such date has been given. The copy of the same is exhibit as Ex.CW-2. As per the record, Sh.G.S.Minhas sold the said property in question to Smt.Lajwanti w/o Sh.Tehal Ram on 04.04.1991. The power of attorney as well as sale agreement was executed and the copies of the same are Mark-"A" & Mark-"B'. Smt.Lajwanti further sold the property to Sh.Anil Kalra s/o Sh.Girdhari Lal vide agreement to sell dated 21.11.1996 and the same was Mark-"C". Further, Sh.Anil Kalra further sold the property to Smt. Suman Sachdeva vide GPA as well agreement to sell dated 21.11.1996 Mark-"D" & Mark-"E". The photocopies of the same are present and the same are notarized. The receipt has also been executed by Anil Kalra while receiving the payment from Suman Sachdeva and the copy of the same is Mark-"F". Perpetual lease deed was also issued in the name of Ex. Captain G.S.Minhas s/o late Sh.Bhulle Singh and Smt.Parminder Kaur Minhas on 09.08.1990 and the same is exhibit as Ex.CW-3. Suman Sachdeva w/o Mohan Lal Sachdeva also executed indemnity bond and also executed affidavit in favour of DDA the copy of the same is exhibit as Ex.CW-4 & Ex.CW-5. Application was also moved by Smt.Suman Sachdeva for conversion to lease hold to free hold and copy of the same is Ex.CW-6. I have seen both the conveyance deeds i.e. exhibit as Ex.CW-7 (produced by counsel for the Raj Karan) and Ex.CW-8 (produced by the counsel for the bank). I have seen the exhibit CW-7 and on that though the same is not similar, but on that the photographs as well as signature of the attesting officer and witnesses are similar in nature. I have also seen the conveyance deed exhibit as Ex.CW-8, the same does not appear to be similar of that of record of conveyance deed placed on record, the photograph as well as signatures of the attesting officer and witnesses are different. )0000000( by Shri H.P.Bhardwaj, Advocate for OBC Bank. At point A-A, I have seen the signature of lease Administration Office (LAO) and the same are not similar of Ex.CW-8. The same are not similar to that of conveyance deed placed on record i.e. Ex.CW-2. The signatures over the page 2 & 3 of Conveyance deed are though different but are of the same officer and the flow is different. )0000000( by Shri Nitin Narang, Advocate for the defendant no.4. NIL — Opportunity given

09. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Application Form, KYC, Sanction Letter, Letter of Authority, Agreement for Housing Loan, Title Deeds, Acknowledge Receipt, Various Letters, Notices u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, Balance & Security

Confirmation Letters, Demand Notice, Possession Notice, Photocopies of Newspapers, Recall Notice, Ld. CMM Order, Copies of Emails, Statement of Account marked as Ex.AW-1/1

to Ex.AW-1/23 (Colly).

11. That on perusal of the records, it appears that the applicant bank is claiming its mortgage over the property in question on the basis of the conveyance deed dated 04.06.1999 executed by the Delhi Development Authority in the name of Suman Sachdeva w/o Mohan Lal. However, on perusal of the order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the Ld. DRT- III, Delhi vide which it was observed that the conveyance deed upon which the applicant bank is claiming its mortgage was not similar to the records of DDA and accordingly, there is doubt about genuineness of the said conveyance deed, but this Tribunal cannot decide that whose conveyance deed is genuine and such issue can only be decided by the competent court of law and it is informed that some complaint/case is pending before the concerned court. Accordingly, the mortgage of the applicant bank shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Civil Court regarding the genuineness of the aforesaid conveyance deed executed by the DDA qua the property in question.

12. The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

13. The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

14. In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant no.1 to 3 to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.20,31,099/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty One Thousand Ninety Nine only) as on 06.09.2011 together with pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum with monthly rests from 07.09.2011 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the amount shall be recovered from the mortgaged property being bearing No.2, Block and Pocket B-2, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi shall be subject to the decision of the concerned civil court. In case of default / shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants. (II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi. (III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 07.07.2026. (IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost. (GOVIND BALLABH SHAR A) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI (Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 08.05.2026