STATE BANK OF INDIA vs Kumar & Co on 22 June 2026

O R D E R

2. This TA which was Original Application No.305 of 2014 had been filed before Ld. DRT, Madurai on 27.06.2014 under S.19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – for short ‘the Act’ for recovery of the sum of ₹.35,20,814/- due under the credit facility with interest @14.25% per annum from 03.04.2014 till the date of realization and by sale of OA schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ mortgaged properties. I.A.No.1964/2017 filed by a third party namely Ms. Krishna Bai seeks to implead her as party Defendant and IA No.4699/2024 filed by the Applicant Bank and IA No.4700/2024 are respectively Court fee refund petition and petition to record Full Satisfaction of Rs.13,12,841/- paid by Defendant under OTS.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank would submit that the Defendants having settled the loans contracted by M/s. Kumar & Co., the Full Satisfaction Petition has come to be filed in IA No.4700/2024 and the title deeds have already been delivered to the mortgagor Mr.K.Kumar to whom alone the bank has an obligation to deliver back the title deeds so deposited by him. The possession of secured asset 3 TA 1707/2019

having been restored to the concerned borrower, nothing survives to be agitated in the present TA as regards the OA schedule immovable property and the title deeds relating to it, would be his further submission.

4. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner/ third party Ms. Krishna Bai in IA No.1964/2017 would submit that his client Ms. Krishna Bai would have to be impleaded in the OA to seek and obtain a direction of this Tribunal as against the applicant bank to deliver to the petitioner the registered Will dated 01.06.2005 in as much as she became entitled to 1/6th share in the OA schedule property which originally belonged to the testator Dr.Gomathy; that the Petitioner’s sisters Ms.Dona Bai and Ms.Geetha Bai borrowed finance from the 2nd defendant Mr.Kumar who is a financier during which time the said defendant demanded them to give their photos as formality; that the Petitioner’s mother and her other sisters except the petitioner Krishna Bai executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one of their sisters Geetha Bai; that the financier Kumar and one Dhanapal (Retired CTO of Erode) had with malafide intention forged the signature of power agent Geetha Bai in the sale deed made available to the bank and set out in the MODT; that one Advocate Commissioner introducing himself as Mr.Sherrif with Police-force evicted the Petitioner/

4 TA 1707/2019

third party from the OA subject property on 10.07.2013 constraining the Petitioner and her sisters to file SA 171/2013 before Ld. DRT, Madurai which was transferred to and renumbered before this Tribunal as TSA 448/2019; that the registered Will which is the title deed to the Petitioner/ third party ought to be delivered to her alone and not to the borrower Mr.K.Kumar who have forged the signature of the Power Agent Geetha Bai in the sale deed got executed in his name and deposited with the bank along with the Will; and that the possession of secured asset having been restored back to the Petitioner who was in occupation of it earlier, the Tribunal would have to order and direct the Applicant Bank (which is now State Bank of India) to deliver back the Will to the Petitioner / third party by way of the final order to be passed in the present TA. Ld. Counsel would submit that a memo of objection dated 05.12.2024 have been filed on the aforesaid lines by his client which may be considered before proceeding to pass final order in the above T.A and connected IAs.

5. Considering the submissions made across the bar, the Tribunal is convinced that there is not any ‘debt’ to be realized or recovered from the Defendants as it is since admitted that the entire debt stood discharged on 15.03.2023 for Rs.13,12,841/- under OTS upon the Defendants’ remittance of such amounts whereupon the title deeds stood released to 5 TA 1707/2019

the concerned borrower against acknowledgement by the bank, to whom alone it is legally obligated to be delivered. The Petitioner/third party could not furnish any order of a competent Civil Court to the effect of there being a declaratory decree based on the Will or a decree of mandatory injunction as against the applicant bank to deliver one of its parent documents being the registered Will dated 01.06.2005 to Petitioner/third party herein. The Applicant bank cannot be expected to deliver the title deeds received from the concerned borrower to any third party claiming custody of it nor can this Tribunal direct it to deliver it to anybody else except the borrower/title holder who deposited such documents with the bank in absence of a Civil Court order as observed supra. Once the ‘debt’ claimed in the OA stood extinguished by the Defendants’ remittance of such amount or otherwise, the Tribunal is ceased of jurisdiction to pass any further orders in the OA except recording Full Satisfaction of the OA claim as the scope, ambit and purview of adjudication under sections 17 to 19 of RDB Act is confined to determination of debt and the Tribunal is certainly not possessed of any powers, authority or jurisdiction to determine or declare any civil rights or rival claims as is since made by Petitioner/third party as against Respondent / Applicant Bank. The Tribunal holds so fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble High Court Kerala rendered in the case titled “Mr.

6 TA 1707/2019

N. Ramalinga Iyer vs. The Chief Manager & Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank & ors”, in W.A.No.723 of 2017 in O.P (DRT) No.123/2016 which readeth thus:

“6. In fairness to learned Senior Counsel, who appeared for the auction purchasers, he raised certain fundamental issues, which in view of the fact that the debts having been discharged and the course of the Bank to sell the property having ceased, is of little importance. Even though academic, we may note that the first challenge was that if at all the Original Petition/writ appeal is to be allowed, the matter must be relegated to the Tribunal at the stage where the proceedings before the Tribunal were terminated. We find no substance in the submission for the simple reason that once the dues are fully paid up, even jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with the matter would extinguish. The whole exercise is for the recovery of the dues.” (emphasis is mine)

6. I.A. No.4700/2024 is filed by the applicant bank seeking to record the settlement and to dismiss the OA as ‘settled out of Court’. As per the Affidavit accompanying the Petition filed by the Applicant Bank, the Defendants paid a sum of Rs.13,12,841/- towards full and final quit of the TA claim amount of Rs.35,20,814/-. The Petition is allowed.

7. I.A. No.4699/2024 is filed by the applicant bank seeking an order to refund the Court fee as per extent guidelines. In view of the settlement recorded, this petition is allowed following the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Yes Bank v. UoI & 2 Ors., dated 09.06.2023, reported in India Kanoon.org/doc/136629296. The Registry is directed to initiate necessary steps to Refund 50% of the 7 TA 1707/2019

Court Fee amounting to Rs.19,000/- to the Applicant Bank in terms of Notification GSR No.311 (E) dated 15.05.2013 under the Debts Recovery Tribunals (Refund of Court Fee) Rules, 2013.

The OA thus stands disposed of as ‘settled’. Consequently I.A.No.1964/2017 stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

[Dictated to my Steno directly on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 22nd day June, 2026].

Sd/-

[ N SOMASUNDAAR ]

8 TA 1707/2019

A P P E N D I X APPLICANT BANK’S DOUCMENTS S.N O. Date Documents Page

1. 28-06-2008 Loan sanction order to the 1st defendant for Rs.17,00,000/- 1-3

2. 28-06-2008 Demand Promissory Note executed by M/s.Kumar & Co, by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant Bank for Rs.17,00,000/-

3. 28-06-2008 D.P.Note delivery letter executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff Bank

4. 28-06-2008 Letter to be obtained from guarantor executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the applicant Bank.

5. 28-06-2008 Agreement of hypothecation and guarantee executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favor of the applicant Bank for Rs.17,00,000/- 7-11

6. 27-11-1985 Xerox registered sale deed executed by M.Palaniappan, son of Mariappa Mudaliar in favour of K.Natarajan, son of Karuppana gounder under document No.5561/1985. D.R.O. Erode 12-17

7. 06-11-1996 Xerox registered sale deed executed by Natarajan in favour of J.V.Gomathy, wife of T.G.V.Raj under document No.3468/1996. D.R.O. Erode 18-22

8. 01-06-2005 Xerox registered will deed executed by Gomathy in favour of Padmavathy, Krishna Bai, Surendaran, Lalitha Bai, Geetha Bai and Dona Bai under document No.120/2005. D.R.O. Erode 23-28

9. 20-01-2006 Death certificate of Gomathy issued by Erode Municipality

10. 01-06-2005 Notarized release deed executed by Krishna Bai, wife of V.Mohan Dos 30-31

11. 02-01-2008 Registered general power of attorney executed by Pamavathy, Surendran, Lalitha Bai, wife of Sankar Raj under document No.1/2008. S.R.O. Pudukottai 32-37

12. 31-01-2008 Registered sale deed executed by Geetha Bai for herself and on behalf of Padmavathy and others in favour of Kumar under document No.526/2008. D.R.O. Erode 38-49

13. 27-08-2009 Patta No.2855 50-53

14. 27-08-2009 “A” Register

15. 23-09-2009 F.M.B of field No.791

16. 23-09-2009 Certificate issued by V.A.O

17. 22-07-2009 Property tax receipt issued by the Executive officer, kasipalayam Municipality

18. 25-09-2009 Encumbrance certificate for the period from 01-01-1987 to 21-09-2009 58-61

19. 02-03-2009 Registered mortgage clearance receipt issued by Mohan, son of Muthusamy and Krishnamoorthy, son of Ramasamy in favor of Padmavathy and others under document No.974/2009, D.R.O. Erode 62-64

20. 18-02-2009 Loan sanction letter to the 2nd defendant for Rs.2,00,000/- 65-66

21. 18-02-2009 Demand promissory Note executed by the defendants 1 and

22. 18-02-2009 D.P.Note delivery letter executed by the defendants 1 and 2

9 TA 1707/2019

23. 18-02-2009 Letter to be obtained from guarantor executed by the 1st defendant

24. 18-02-2009 Agreement of hypothecation and guarantee executed by the defendants 1 and 2 70-76

25. 27-04-1998 Registered final decree passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Erode under document No.2130/1998. D.R.O. Erode 77-87

26. 16-12-2009 Panchayat Muchalika for partition executed between Duraisamy and Kumar 88-90

27. 30-12-2009 Registered gift settlement deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant under document No.6560/2009. D.R.O. Erode 91-94

28. 26-01-2010 Notary affidavit oath by Duraisamy in favour of Indirani 95-96

29. 11-01-2010 Patta No.2854

30. 11-01-2010 A-Register

31. 12-01-2010 F.M.B of field No.780

32. 12-01-2010 Certificate issued by V.A.O

33. 08-01-2010 Encumbrance certificate for the period from 01-01-1987 to 07-01-2010 101-102

34. 19-03-2010 Registered memorandum relating to deposit of title deeds executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants in favour of the applicant Bank under document No.1972/2010. D.R.O. Erode 103-108

35. 20-07-2005 Plaint copy in O.S.No.219/2005, before the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge of Erode 109-122

36. Plaint copy in O.S.No.463/2013, before the Principal Subordinate Judge of Erode 123-130

37. Petition copy in S.A.No.171/2013, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai 131-135

38. 17-04-2013 Order copy in CMP No.392/2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Erode, regarding physical possession of the property belongs to the 2nd defendant 136-138

39. 02-05-2014 Office copy of the legal notice 139-143

40. 02-05-2014 Postal receipts

41. 03-05-2014 Served acknowledgement card of the 1st defendant

42. 03-05-2014 Served acknowledgement card of the 2nd defendant

43. 02-04-2014 Statement of accounts of 1st defendant (M/s.Kumar & Co) 147-186

44. 02-04-2014 Statement of accounts of 1st defendant (M/s.Kiran Traders) 187-193

Sd/-

PRESIDING OFFICER

10 TA 1707/2019

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY

TRIBUNAL, COIMBATORE

PRESENT: SRI N SOMASUNDAAR, B.A.; B.L. PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 22nd June, 2026

TA No.1707 of 2019

Between

1. State Bank of India,

Nethaji Road Branch, Erode.

Then State Bank of Mysore, Constituted under

Subsidiary Bank Act 1959 Carrying on Banking Business and having its Head Office at 646-K.G, Road, Bangalore, and a branch at 738-Nethaji Road, Periyar Mandram Complex, Erode. …… Applicant Bank And

1. M/s. Kumar & Co

by its Proprietrix Indirani,

2. M/s. Kiran Traders,

Proprietor,

Mr.Kumar

..….. Defendants

O R D E R