Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/4172/2026 of E.Ramachandar Rao, Vs The Union of India, on 12 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V WRIT PETITION No.4172 of 2026 Between: 1. E.RAMACHANDAR RAO, S/O.LATE GURUVULU, R/O.48 30/3, ASHOK NAGAR, ASILMETTA,
APHC010071652026
IN TH
FRIDAY, T
TWO
THE HONOURABLE
THE HONOURA
W
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. E.RAMACHAN 30/3, ASHOK
1. THE UNION O MINISTRY OF
2. THE AUTHOR MAHALAKSHM AKKAYYAPAL
3. DHANASHREE PROPRIETOR 39-8-12/1, MUR
4. KANTIMAHANT PATNAIK, FL WASTI RD, B 207, MAHARA HE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUA O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDR AND ABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISH
DAR RAO, S/O.LATE GURUVULU NAGAR, ASILMETTA, VISAKHAPAT ...P AND OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL S FINANCE, NEW DELHI -110 001. RIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER MI COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., D.N EM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 016. E RICE & HOME NEEDS, R R BODDEPALLI GIRI BABU S/O. RALINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM -53 THI SARASWARI, W/O. LATE LAT NO.F-604, AWHO VIJAY VIHA ESIDE FIRE STATION WAGHOLI, ASHTRA STATE. ...RESPO DESH
ARY RANATH ROY NA RAO , R/O.48-11- TNAM. PETITIONER SECRETARY, R, KANAKA NO.49-34-22, REP.BY ITS NARAYANA, 30 007. E KRISHNA AR, MORE PUNE -412 ONDENT(S):
CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.4172 of 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SAIRAM MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. The Court made the following:
CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.4172 of 2026
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4172 of 2026
O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The 3rd respondent is the principal borrower, who availed loan from the 2nd respondent - Cooperative bank, and the 4th respondent is the guarantor. They mortgaged the secured asset as security for repayment of the loan amount. As the 3rd respondent has committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the bank has initiated measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’). The possession of the secured asset is sought to be taken under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
3. The order of the learned Magistrate, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the secured asset, is now sought to be assailed by the petitioner, who is a third party to the loan transaction. He is neither a borrower nor a guarantor in respect of the said loan transaction. According to him, he is the owner of the secured asset and he got it in his family partition. But, the material on record shows that the 3rd and 4th respondents have deposited the registered sale deed relating to the secured asset with the bank in connection with the loan transaction. The said sale deed establishes their title over
CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.4172 of 2026
the property. The petitioner has suppressed the fact as to who executed the said sale deed in their favour. He did not deny the title of the vendor of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Moreover, the petitioner did not produce any evidence at least to prima facie show that he got right over the said property and that the said property was part of his joint family property and it was allotted to him in the family partition. Therefore, except making a bald assertion that he is the owner of the property and he got it in his family partition, no evidence worth the name is produced by the petitioner to prove his title over the said property.
4. Therefore, when the petitioner could not establish his title to the property as claimed by him and when he is a third party to the loan transaction, in the considered view of this Court, he cannot seek to challenge the proceedings initiated by the bank under the SARFAESI Act for realization of the loan amount from the 3rd respondent, who is the principal borrower.
5. If at all the petitioner got any right or title over the said property and if it is his case that the said property was mortgaged by the 3rd and 4th respondents without any valid title, the petitioner has to seek redressal of his grievance in the appropriate forum. As disputed questions of fact are involved in view of the plea taken by the petitioner regarding the title of the property in question and as the same cannot be decided by the writ Court, he has to pursue his remedy in the appropriate forum in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
6. Ergo, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy in the appropriate forum.
CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.4172 of 2026
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 13.02.2026 IBL
CMR,J & VGKR,J W.P.No.4172 of 2026
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4172 of 2026
Dt: 13.02.2026 IBL