HDFC BANK vs A A Lenin on 28 November 2025

1. A.A.Lenin,

S/o.Appunni,

Arangath House,

Vandanapilly,

Thrissur.

2. V.G.Mandhagini,

W/o.Lenin,

Arangath House,

Vandanapilly,

Thrissur.

…Defendants

This Original Application having been heard on 03.11.2025 in the presence of Advocate Smt.Saraswathi P. for the applicant bank and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

F I N A L O R D E R

This Original Application has been filed under S.19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.20,78,078.53 due under two term loan (housing loan) accounts together with future interest thereon @12.75% per annum with monthly rests from the defendants jointly and severally and by sale of the property owned by the defendants. Facts of the case:

2. The applicant is a banking company constituted under the Companies Act having its registered office at Mumbai and its Business Banking Division at SL Plaza.

3. The defendants approached the erstwhile Lord Krishna Bank, Thrissur Branch for a loan against immovable property. Considering their request, applicant bank sanctioned a term loan (housing loan) of Rs.10 lakhs in July, 2006 which was availed by them. As security for the loan, equitable mortgage was created over the property owned by the 1st defendant by depositing document No.632/2006 dated 13.03.2006 of Vadanappilly SRO and executed a letter confirming the deposit of title deed with the bank on 12.07.2006. Thereafter, at the request of the defendants, an additional term loan (home loan) of Rs.3.50 lakhs was sanctioned on 18.04.2007 and the mortgage created over the subject matter property was extended to secure the additional loan. Due to default in repayment, the applicant bank issued demand notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 12.07.2010 demanding repayment of the outstanding dues but they did not settle the liability.

4. It is averred in paragraph VI (vi) of the OA that the SARFAESI proceeding could not be completed as the applicant came to know that the document produced by the defendants while creating the mortgage is a fabricated document and they had created security interest over the property in other banks by producing fabricated documents. Thereafter applicant bank issued a lawyer notice dated 02.06.2013 calling upon the defendants to repay a sum of Rs.20.50 lakhs. As they did not take any step to repay the dues, the applicant was constrained to file the OA claiming the following reliefs:

(i) To recover an aggregate sum of Rs.20,78,078.53 together with pendente lite and post-decree interest thereon from the defendants jointly and severally and by sale of the property owned by the defendants;

(ii) To recover the costs, charges and expenses from the defendants;

(iii) To issue Recovery Certificate to the Recovery Officer with a direction to recover the amount and pay it to the applicant bank.

5. The defendants filed written statement denying the claim made by the applicant bank. Thereafter, they remained absent from the proceeding and none appeared and represented to address argument in this case. Proof Affidavit:

6. To establish the claim on behalf of the applicant bank, one Mr.Shyam Prasanth, Manager (Legal) has filed proof affidavit and produced the loan documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A13. The proof affidavit filed by AW1 and the documents produced in this case are not challenged by the defendants. The availing of the loans is well established from the documents placed by the applicant bank. An aggregate sum of Rs.20,78,078.53 is outstanding in the loan accounts as on 06.07.2013, which is clearly established from the account statements marked as Exts.A10 and A11.

7. Considering the amount advanced, interest applied and default committed and also the facility granted being a housing loan, I am of the view that the applicant bank is entitled to get pendente lite and post-decree interest @9% per annum, which is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the applicant bank has claimed that the document produced by the defendants while creating the mortgage is a fabricated document, no valid mortgage subsists in respect of the subject matter property and hence no relief is granted against the same.

8. The applicant bank, therefore, is entitled to get a final order on the following lines: In the result, the applicant bank is given a final order allowing it to recover:

(i) an aggregate sum of Rs.20,78,078.53 (Rupees twenty lakhs seventy eight thousand seventy eight and Paise fifty three only) due under the term loan (housing loan) and additional term loan (housing loan) accounts from the defendants jointly and severally and their assets;

(ii) pendente lite and post-decree interest @9% per annum on the sum of Rs.20,78,078.53 (Rupees twenty lakhs seventy eight thousand seventy eight and Paise fifty three only) from 23.07.2013 till realization from the defendants jointly and severally and their assets; and

(iii) costs and expenses borne by it for realization of the loan from the defendants.

9. The applicant bank shall file memo of costs within ten days from the date of this final order.

10. Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of the final order.

11. Communicate copy of this order to both parties as provided in R.16 r/w R.2(c) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 28th day of November, 2025)

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH]

A P P E N D I X Witness for Applicant: AW1: Sri.Shyam Prasanth H., Manager (Legal) of the applicant bank. Witness for Defendant(s): Nil

Applicant’s Exhibits

Ext.No Date Particulars of documents

A1 16.05.2013 Copy of the power of attorney executed by the applicant bank authorizing the Manager (legal) to represent the bank and file the case. A2 13.03.2006 Copy of sale deed No.632/1/2006 of Vadanappally SRO. A3 12.07.2006 Copy of loan agreement executed by the defendants. A4 13.07.2006 Copy of letter evidencing deposit of title deed executed by the 1st defendant. A5 18.04.2007 Copy of letter executed by the defendants in favour of the bank. A6 18.04.2007 Copy of letter evidencing deposit of title deed with continuing security clause executed by the 1st defendant. A7 21.08.2007 Copy of acknowledgement of receipt of title deed issued by the bank to the 1st defendant. A8 12.07.2010 Copy of demand notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act issued to the defendants. A9 26.06.2013 Copy of lawyer notice issued to the defendants. A10 06.07.2013 certified copy of the statement of account relating to the home loan of Rs.10 lakhs. A11 06.07.2013 certified copy of the statement of account relating to the additional term loan (home loan). A12 … Statement of account for the period from 11.06.2008 to 12.03.2009 relating to loan of Rs.10 lakhs.

A13 … Statement of account for the period from 11.06.2008 to 12.03.2009 relating to loan of Rs.3.50 lakhs.

Defendants’ Exhibits – Nil

PRESIDING OFFICER

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 28th November, 2025

TA No.1353/2016 (OA No.412/2013)

Between

HDFC Bank Ltd., Business Banking Division, Rep. by Manager (Legal). Registered office at: HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg Building, Mumbai – 400 013. …Applicant

And

A.A.Lenin, S/o.Appunni, Arangath House, Vandanapilly, Thrissur & another.

...Defendants

F I N A L O R D E R