CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs Smt Neelam Chauhan ans Ors on 17 August 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 31.12.2016 through Mr, M.K. Girdhar, Senior Manager of the applicant under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendant nos.1 to 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,16,93l- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @14.25o/o from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant nos.1 to 3, the applicant bank sanctioned a Financial Assistance of Rs.22,50,000/-, vide sanction lefter dated 16.11.2011. The defendant no.4 stood as guarantor for the samg,--lle defendant nos.1 to 4

TANO/125012024 2 executed all necessary loaning documents on 16.11.2011, In order to secure the facility duly availed by the defendant's equitable mortgage was created in favour of the applicant bank by deposit of original title deeds in respect of residential buift-up Propefi No.l* Floor bearing No. A-20, measuring 150 sq yds comprised in khasra no.29lt6 situated in the area of village Dabri. Colony Known as Dabri Extn, New Delhi. It is submitted that in order to restrain the applicant bank from taking possession the defendant no.1 filed S.A no.33 of 20t4. The Honble Tribunal taking a sympathetic view disposed off the said matter on 09.02.2016 with direction to the applicant to deposit entire balance amount within six equal monthly instalments from 09.02.2016. After the said S.A was disposed and the defendant failed to pay the legal due ofthe bank, the bank again proceeded under SARFEASI Act. At this juncture in order to restrain the applicant bank the defendant no.5 filed Securitization Application no. 196 of 2016 allegedly as a subsequent purchaser. It is submitted that the documents on the basis of which the securitization application has been filed is forged and fabricated. Hence, there exist no valid title with defendant no.5.

3. It is fufther submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants. Hence, the account was classified as NPA dated 15.07.2013. The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 30.08.2013 to the defen_{4p.!ut failed to recover the 9P

TANO/125012024 3 same Thus, the present O.AfI.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, the defendants put appearance through counsel. The defendant nos.1 to 3 failed to file written statement on time and right to file evidence of defendant no.1 to 3 was also closed vide order dated L4.t2.20L8. The defendant no.4 failed to file written statement on time and right to flle written statement of defendant no.4 was closed vide order dated 14.12.2018. The defendant no.5 has filed written statement and evidence.

5. In their written statement the defendant no.5 has denied the facts mentioned in the OA. It is submitted that the defendant no.5 has been wrongly impleaded in the present Original Application and no liability can be fastened upon the defendant no.5 and as such the present Original Application qua the defendant no.5 is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the defendant no.5 had preferred the Securitisation Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal under the provisions of Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 is aggrieved and suffering and serious prejudice caused to him to his rights by the illegal and unwarranted steps taken by the applicant bank in respect of the propefi i.e. Free Hold Built Up First Floor without roof rights portion of property bearing no.A-20, area measuring 125.4 sq. mtrs. (150 sq. yds) out of Kh. No.29l16 situated in the area of Village Dabri Colony known as Dabri Extn. Main, Block A, New Delhi. It is further submitted that the defendant is the lawful and absolute owner and in physical possession of the aforesaid rchased property and having p D the same by viftue of

TANO/1250/2024 4 registered sale deed executed in his favour for lawful consideration from Smt. Asha Rani Chauhan and the sale deed dated 09.11.2015 in favour of the defendant no.5 is duly registered on 27.11.2015 with the Office of Sub-Registrar IX, New Delhi. It is further submitted that the defendant no.5 is having chain of documents in original in their possession i.e. Sale Deed executed by Smt. Neelam Chauhan in favour Smt. Asha Rani Chauhan, Sale Deed executed by Shri Ravinder Singh Chauhan in favour of Smt. Neelam Chauhan and sale deed in his favour. It is submitted that the applicant bank is claiming their alleged charge over the propefi in question, whereas the original documents as stated above are in possession of the defendant no.5, hence the alleged charge of the applicant bank is on forged and fabricated title deeds. The property in question is in his ownership and is free from any charge or encumbrances and the title was absolutely free and independent when the defendant no.5 had purchased the same. All the original documents including previous chain of original documents of title are with the defendant no.5. It is submitted that the title deeds are forged and fabricated with the applicant bank, therefore, the steps taken under Securitization Act as well as claim in Original Application regarding the immovable property are totally illegal, unwarranted, bad in law and the steps taken qua the defendant are liable to be set aside / quashed. It is fufther submitted that defendant only came to know the illegal and unwarranted acts of the defendants when the Receiver appointed by the Ld. CMM, Dwarka Courts visited the property in question on 14.08.2016 and affixed the Notice dated 01.08.2016 for taking physical possession on 29.08.2016 and also affixed the of the property

TANOlt250l2024 5 orders dated 01.08.2016 passed by the Ld. CMM, Dwarka Courts, Delhi immediately flled the Securitization Application No. t93120t6 which is pending adjudication. The defendant no.5 is relying upon the contents of the Securitization Application and Evidence by way of Affidavit tendered by defendant no.5. It is a clearcut case of forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy by defendant nos. 1 to 4 in connivance with applicant bank officials. It is submitted that any alleged mortgaged by the Neelam Chauhan is bad in law with applicant bank. The steps taken by the applicant bank are also bad in law and liable to be set aside qua the immovable propefi. It is fufther submitted that it has been revealed in the reply to Securitization Application filed by the applicant bank that the alleged mortgage was created by defendant no.3 in the year 2011 i.e. on 16.11.2011 and before the said date, the defendant no.l had already sold the property in question to Smt. Asha Rani Chauhan by viftue of sale deed dated 16.03.2010 duly registered on dt 18.3.2010 with the Office of Sub Registrar IX, Delhi. The said sale deed clearly shows that the defendant no.l allegedly created moftgage of a property in 2011 whereas she had already sold the same to Smt. Asha Rani Chauhan on 16.03.2010 from whom the defendant no.5 has purchased the said property, meaning thereby, that the alleged mortgage was created by defendant no.1 in favour of the applicant bank on 15.11.2011 and before that the defendant no.1 had already sold the property to Smt. Asha Rani Chauhan on 16.03.2010 and thereafter defendant no.1 was left with no right, title or interest of the said property. It is further submitted that defendant no.5 has purchased the propefi from Smt. Asha Rani Chauhan UUg l! :lavinder Sinngh Chauhan. !0

TANO/1250/2024 6 As far as loan documents are concerned, the defendant no.5 has no knowledge of the same. However as per sale deed Smt. Neelam Chauhan is the wife of Sh. R.S. Chauhan and Sh. R.S. Chauhan is Rajinder Singh Chauhan as per information availabb with the defendant no.5. The documents of title i.e, sale deed dated 16.03.2010 also clearly shows that Mrs. Neelam Chauhan is wife of l-ate Sh. Rajinder Singh Chauhan and Asha Rani Chauhan is wife of Sh. Ravinder Singh Chauhan. The defendant no.5 is the lawful and absolute owner of the property in question by virtue of registered sale deeds executed in his favour along with previous original chain of tiUe documents as stated above. The applicant bank has not fulfilled its obligations under law and it has not discharged duties and functions in legal and proper manner before taking steps under Securitization Act by filling the present original application and claiming the immovable property. It is prayed that this Honble Tribunal may dismiss the present O.A.

6. The applicant bank and defendant no.5 have filed their respective evidence.

7. Heard the Ld. Counsel of applicant bank and defendant no.5 and perused the record.

8. The main contention of the Ld. counsel of the applicant bank is that the defendant no.1 to 3 has taken loan of Rs.22,50,000/- and defendant no.4 has stood as a guarantor of the loan. The loan was sanction on 16.11.2011. It is submitted that the defendant no. 1 to 3 has failed to maintain the financial discipline and therefore, the account of defendant no.l to 4 has been declared as NPA. It is -subqjFed that notice under g2

TANOlt250l2024 7 Section 13 (2) and 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act has been issued. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 has filed SA no.33/2024 against the action of the applicant bank in which the Hon'ble Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit entire balance amount within six equal monthly installments from 09.02.2016. The defendant no.1 has failed to adhere the order of the Hontle Tribunal. Therefore, the defendant no.1 to 4 are joinUy and severally liable for the amount due. The defendant no.1 to 4 have not filed the written statement and the opportunity of defendant no.1 to 4 to file the written statement has been closed. The defendant no.5 has appeared and has filed the written statement. As per original application it is submitted by the applicant bank that after taking the loan it is claimed that the defendant no.5 has purchased the property from Smt. Asha Rani Chauhan by virtue of sale deed dated 09.11.2025. It is further submifted that Smt. Asha Rani Chauhan has purchased the propefi by way of sale deed dated 16.03.2010. The defendant no.1 has purchased the propefi from defendant no.2 by viftue of sale deed dated 27.01.2009. The defendant no.2 has purchased the property from Smt. Meena Guleria through sale deed dated 28.02.2005. Smt. Meena Guleria purchased the property from Shri Mir Singh. Therefore, it is submitted that defendant no.5 is the owner of the subject property and the bank cannot proceed against the subject property. From perusalof the file it is clear that the claim of the applicant bank is that defendant no.l to 3 has taken a loan from the applicant bank and defendant no.4 has stood as a guarantor. No recovery ceftificate has been prayed against the defendant no.5. The contention of the defendant no.5 that he is owner of the propefi cannot ,, SQ _-.=*-

TANOlt2s0/2024 8 be accepted as the sale deed in favour of defendant no.5 is subsequent to the mortgage in favour of the applicant bank. More over this question cannot be decided in the present OA. When the Ld. RO proceeds against the subject prcpe@, the defendant no.5 may file an application under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Act and claim that the defendant no.5 is the owner and in possession of the property. The same may be decided by the Ld. RO in the execution proceedings of the recovery certificate. The applicant bank has wrongly impleaded defendant no.5 as a party in the present OA. Therefore, the contention of defendant no.5 cannot be heard in the present OA.

9. From perusal of the entire evidence, it is clear that, the applicant bank has proved his case against the defendant no. 1to 4 and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the amount claimed by the applicant bank and the O.A of the applicant bank is liable to be allowed. In the light of the above discussions, the present O.A[T.A. deserves to be allowed against defendant no.1 to 4.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos. I to 4 to pay jointly and severally to the applicant within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.34,16,g371- along with cost, expenses and interest @L4.25o/o from the date of filing of this O.A which has become T.A. till the date of realization.

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount the stipulated period, the '\-'=- * ,s0 within same shall be

TANO/12s0t2024 recovered from the sale of mortgaged property bearing residential built-up ProperEy on 1* Floor bearing No. A-20, measuring 150 sq yds mmprised in Khasra no.29ll6 situated in the area of village Dabri, Colony Known as Dabri Extn, New Delhi. In case of short of fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale'of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 to 4.

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Remvery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

4) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free mpy of the order and send the same to both the parties.

5) Parties are direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 19. 10.2025. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records.

9P c Date: 17.08.2026 (SUSHIL KUM oGr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and eg .. (SUSHIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi uf l .)^- GI) Date :17.08.2026 i t