D Periasamy vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 23 July 2024

JUDGEMENT

1. Appeal No.1 of 2022 in OA No.581 of 2013:- This appeal has been filed under Section 30(1) of the Recovery of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) now amended as 'The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993' challenging the order of the Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai dated 29.03.22, Sale Notice & Sale confirmation Order recorded in OA No.581/13.

2. The brief averments of the Application filed by the Appellant are as follows:- The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the Appellant, is an agriculturist and secured a loan of Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from the 1st Respondent Bank on 12th September 2009 to support his agricultural endeavors. However, circumstances took a turn, leading to a debt amounting to Rs. 14,37,508/-(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Eight only). In response, the bank initiated legal proceedings by filing an OA for a sum of Rs. 14,37,508/- before this Hon'ble Tribunal, seeking the recovery of the balance outstanding sum. Following the legal proceedings, a Final Order was issued on 6th July 2018, and subsequently, a DRC was issued on 27th July 2018 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. However, an unfortunate error occurred in the process when the Registrar of DRT, Madurai, acting beyond his jurisdiction, sent the decree passed by the DRT, Madurai to the DRT –III, Chennai. Whereas, the property is situated within Trichy District, falling under the territorial jurisdiction of DRT, Madurai. Therefore, the entire jurisdiction for execution lies solely within the boundaries of DRT, Madurai. Then, the Recovery Officer of DRT-III, Chennai, on 6th September 2021, issued an order of attachment (Page No. 22 of Typed set pages) and sent letter to Uppiliapuram Sub Registrar, Trichy District (Page No. 24 of Typed set pages). In the meanwhile, the 1st Respondent Bank granted OTS vide letter dated 13.01.2022 to pay Rs. 10,34,632/- plus interest on 31.03.2022

(Page No. 27 of Typed set pages). When the Appellant preparing himself to pay the OTS amount, the RO, DRT-III, Chennai issued a Sale Notice on 21st January, 2022 for the property located in Trichy District even before the expiry of OTS period that falls on 31.03.2022 (Page No. 30 of Typed set pages). It is also further emphasized that DRT-III, Chennai had no rightful jurisdiction to proceed with these actions because the place of Appellant and place of bank and place of the property all situated at Trichy District and entire cause of actions lies at Trichy District. Making these proceedings at DRT-III, Chennai is not only legally questionable but also amounts to a grave miscarriage of justice.

It is further submitted that challenging the Auction Sale Notice, the Appellant filed an Interim Petition in IA No. 09/2022 in TRC No. 88/99 before the RO, DRT-III, Chennai. However, the same has been dismissed stating that the Auction Purchaser has paid the entire amount. (Page No. 32 of Typed set pages). Further, on 21.04.2022, order of confirmation sale and on 22.04.2022, certificate of sale has been registered by the RO, DRT- III, Chennai. (Page No. 34 & 36 of Typed set pages). Being aggrieved over the same, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition in WP (MD) No. 6822 of 2022 in WP No. 9533/2022. The Hon'ble High Court passed an order of Interim injunction dated 06.05.2022 subject to the condition that the Petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 10,34,632/- within a period of 10 days and directed the bank to work out further amount payable. The Appellant fulfilled this condition and paid a sum of Rs. 10,34,632/- which was also acknowledged by the 1st Respondent Bank vide their letter dated 13.05.2022 (Page No. 53 & 54 of Typed set pages). Further, the Appellant sent a letter dated 17.05.2022 requesting the bank to give the calculation of the interest portion. (Page No. 55 of Typed set pages). In the meantime, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, but with the liberty to the Appellant to approach the DRT once again, underscoring the complexity and persistence required in pursuit of justice. Acknowledging the appellant's compliance with the payment condition, the Court deemed the case eligible for further consideration and passed an order. (Page No. 61 & 62 of Typed set of pages). Consequently, the present appeal is filed.

The Appellant also filed a complaint with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) dated 08.07.2022, and DVAC forwarded the complaint to the CBI and the District Collector of Trichy for necessary action and the same is pending. (Page No. 64 of Typed set pages).

In a bid to contest the illegal and arbitrary Sale Certificate issued without jurisdiction by the RO, DRT-III, Chennai, the Appellant took decisive action to challenge the same. Recognizing the clear jurisdictional limits, the appellant lodged an appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. As it emphasized the crucial fact that the jurisdiction for this case exclusively resided within DRT, Madurai. By filing the appeal in the appropriate jurisdiction, the appellant aimed to rectify the errors made earlier and ensure that the legal process moved forward in a just and lawful manner, within the rightful confines of the DRT, Madurai's jurisdiction.

EVIDENCE REGARDING JURISDICTION:

The property under dispute, located at Shobana Puram, Uppiliyapuram, Thuraiyur taluk, Ariyalur Registration District, Trichy District, falls unequivocally within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble DRT Madurai. (Page No. 1 to 20 of Typed Set Pages). This crucial detail underscores the error in jurisdictional handling, emphasizing that DRT-III Chennai had absolutely no jurisdiction in this matter. The clear geographic delineation of the property reaffirms that any legal proceedings related to it should have been exclusively under the purview of DRT Madurai. The misdirection and transfer for execution of this case to DRT- III, Chennai further emphasized the need for rectification, ensuring that legal proceedings adhere strictly to the correct territorial jurisdictions.

A significant discrepancy has emerged in the actions of the Recovery Officer at DRT Chennai. In a concerning oversight, the order of attachment was erroneously sent by letter of RO, DRT III Chennai dated 06.09.2021 (Page No. 24 of Typed Set Pages), mentioning the sub-registrar as "Uppilapuram, Ariyalur district," which is inconsistent with the actual location of the property situated in Trichy district. This incorrect reference raises questions about the accuracy and diligence in handling the case. Adding to the confusion, another letter from the same officer correctly mentions "Uppilapuram Trichy district", which is dated 22.04.2022 (Page No. 49 of Typed Set Pages). Such inconsistencies not only highlight procedural errors but also underscore the need for a meticulous review of the documentation and proceedings to ensure the integrity of the legal process. Clarification on this matter is imperative to address the discrepancies and maintain the fairness and transparency of the proceedings. In a strategic move to bolster the case further, the appellant submitted additional evidence on 20th March 2023 before DRT Madurai. These documents, filed under SR.No.1716/2023, included the appellant's farmer certificate (enclosed in the 1st Addl. typed set pages in Page No.1) which clearly outlined the jurisdiction of the property situated in Trichy district, underscoring that it unquestionably fell within the boundaries of DRT Madurai.

By providing irrefutable proof of the property's jurisdiction, the appellant aimed to rectify any lingering doubts, reinforcing the argument that DRT Madurai was the rightful and exclusive jurisdiction for the execution of the property and not the DRT III, Chennai. In a compelling revelation, the appellant included another crucial document in their submission. This document provided undeniable proof that a similar property mentioned as Tiruchirappalli District, Ariyalur Registration District, Lalgudi Sub Registration District, Lalgudi Taluk Manakkal West Village, falling within the same jurisdiction, had been auctioned by the Recovery Officer of DRT Madurai only which is dated 09.11.2020 (enclosed in the comprehensive 1st, 2nd and 3rd Addl. typed set pages in Page No.2 to 4). This striking parallel served as a strong legal precedent, highlighting the consistency in the application of jurisdiction by DRT Madurai in similar cases. By presenting this compelling evidence, the appellant not only reinforced their argument regarding the rightful jurisdiction of DRT Madurai but also demonstrated a clear and consistent legal practice within the Tribunal.

This strategic approach not only showcased the appellant's determination to uncover the truth but also emphasized the significance of the geographical context. By highlighting the jurisdictional boundaries, the appellant further obtained the crucial information from the Google in official website of Government of Tamil Nadu regarding territorial jurisdiction of the property situated at Trichy District that would further corroborate their claim and strengthen the case against the erroneous actions taken by DRT-III Chennai. (Comprehensive 1st, 2nd and 3rd Addl. typed set pages in Page Nos.5 to 11). The Appellant submitted an RTI application to DRT-III Chennai on 9th March 2023 under (Comprehensive 1st, 2nd and 3rd Addl. typed set pages in Page No.12 to 13). The DRT-III Chennai vide their reply dated 16.03.2023 stated that the information sought pertained to Trichy district and forwarded the same to DRT Madurai to give a reply. (Comprehensive 1st, 2nd and 3rd Addl. typed set pages in Page No.14 to 15). And, DRT Madurai vide reply dated 30.03.2023 confirmed that the contested property exclusively fell under the jurisdiction of DRT Madurai. (Comprehensive 1st, 2nd and 3rd Addl. typed set pages in Page No.16 to 17). This official acknowledgment solidified the appellant's argument, providing undeniable evidence that further underscored the erroneous actions taken by DRT-III Chennai. The response from DRT Madurai not only affirmed the geographical jurisdiction of the property but also reinforced the appellant's case, strengthening their position in the ongoing legal battle. The appellant submitted another RTI application to the Hon'ble DRAT on 9th March 2023. (Comprehensive 1st, 2nd and 3rd Addl. typed set pages in Page No.18 to 19). On 18th April 2023, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal replied affirming that the property indisputably fell within the territorial jurisdiction of DRT Madurai. (Comprehensive 1st, 2nd and 3rd Addl. typed set pages in Page No.20 to 21). The acknowledgment from both Hon'ble DRT, Madurai and the Hon'ble DRAT served as a powerful testament to the rightful jurisdiction of the property.

The Appellant sent another RTI Application to the District Collector, Ariyalur District, Government of Tamil Nadu on 18th May 2023 (Comprehensive 1st, 2nd and 3rd Addl. typed set pages in Page No.22 to 23). The reply was sent on 23.06.2023 stating that since the information pertains to Trichy Jurisdiction it was forwarded to PA to District Collector, Trichy (Comprehensive 1st, 2nd and 3rd Addl. typed set pages in Page No.24 to 26). Under the RTI the District Collector, Trichy District sent a reply on 08.09.2023 that the schedule of property exclusively falls under the jurisdiction of the Trichy District. (Comprehensive 1st, 2nd and 3rd Addl. typed set pages in Page No.27 to 28).

This response provided a conclusive piece of evidence, emphasizing that the property under dispute exclusively comes under the jurisdiction of DRT Madurai, thereby excluding any jurisdiction of DRT-III, Chennai. This confirmation from the state government served as a definitive validation, underscoring the errors made by DRT-III Chennai and solidifying the Appellant's stance.

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS: The Appellant further submitted that as per sub-section 23 of section 19 of RDDBFI Act 1993, it is explicitly stated that if a Tribunal, issuing a certificate of recovery finds that the property lies within the local limits of the jurisdiction of multiple Tribunals, it has the authority to forward copies of the certificate to those Tribunals.

However, in the present case, the property in question is exclusively situated within local limits of Trichy District and falls solely under the Jurisdiction of DRT Madurai, as the property is not attributed to multiple Tribunals. This legal provision further underlines the irrefutable fact that DRT Madurai has the rightful and exclusive jurisdiction for this case, emphasizing the erroneous actions taken by DRT-III Chennai.

Moreover, the provision explicitly states that if the Tribunal, to which the certificate of recovery is sent for execution, determines that it lacks jurisdiction to comply with the certificate, it is obligated to return it to the issuing Tribunal. Despite this clear mandate, the Recovery Officer at DRT-III Chennai did not adhere to the prescribed protocol to return the certificate to DRT Madurai. This failure to follow the established legal procedures further accentuates the irregularities. Further, according to Section 3 of Chapter 2 of the Act, it is clearly outlined that the Central Government holds the authority to specify, through notifications, the areas within which a Tribunal can exercise jurisdiction for entertaining and deciding Applications. In this context, a specific notification had been passed, explicitly indicating that the property located in Trichy district falls within the territorial jurisdiction of DRT Madurai vide Notification No.G-26036/2/2005-DRT dated 09.01.2007 and amended last notification No.SO-4717(E), SO-4718(E) and SO-4719(E) dated 04.10.2022. (enclosed in the comprehensive 1st, 2nd and 3rd Addl.. typed set pages in Para 2 of page No.16). This official notification further solidifies the argument that DRT Madurai holds the rightful jurisdiction over the case, leaving no room for doubt or misinterpretation. The issuance of this notification serves as a legal affirmation, emphasizing that the legal proceedings related to the property situated under the local limits must be conducted exclusively under the purview of DRT Madurai, reinforcing the appellant's position.

Furthermore, The Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Harjinder Singh vs. Recovery Officer DRT-II & Others in its judgment dated 15th July 2020, in this analogous situation, the High Court rendered a judgment setting aside a sale. The basis for this decision was the High Court's recognition that the sale had been conducted without territorial jurisdiction. This judgment serves as a precedent, underscoring the critical importance of adhering strictly to the prescribed jurisdictional boundaries. It establishes a clear legal principle: any action taken outside the rightful jurisdiction is not only invalid but subject to legal challenge. This ruling further fortifies the appellant's case, providing a robust legal basis to contest the actions of DRT-III Chennai, which clearly overstepped its territorial jurisdiction.

It is further submitted that crucially, Section 18 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 clearly states that from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have the jurisdiction, powers, or authority in relation to the matters specified in Section 17. Section 17, in turn, unequivocally grants the Tribunal the jurisdiction, powers, and authority to entertain and decide applications from banks and financial institutions for the recovery of debts due to them. Despite this unambiguous legal framework, the Registrar of DRT Madurai failed to acknowledge the specific provisions outlined in these sections. Indeed, as per Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, under the heading "Application to the Tribunal," sub-section 1 explicitly outlines the procedure for a bank or financial institution to recover debt. According to this provision, the Application should be made to the Tribunal within the local limits of the jurisdiction where the property in question is situated. In this case, the OA was rightfully filed before DRT Madurai, aligning with the specified jurisdiction. However, the Registrar of DRT Madurai, instead of following the correct protocol, erroneously sent the final order for execution to DRT-III Chennai, which lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

Moreover, the proviso to Section 23 of the RDDBFI Act 1993 adds a crucial dimension to this legal framework. It explicitly states that if the Tribunal receiving the certificate of recovery finds that it lacks jurisdiction to comply with it, the certificate must be returned to the issuing Tribunal. In this case, given the unmistakable jurisdiction of the property under DRT Madurai, the Recovery Officer at DRT-III Chennai was obligated to return the certificate for want of jurisdiction over the property. Despite this clear mandate, the officer failed to adhere to the legal requirements, neglecting to return the certificate to DRT Madurai. This oversight further accentuates the procedural irregularities in this case.

It is settled position of law that the transfer for execution to a different Tribunal is permissible only in specific circumstances. Namely, if there are two properties under consideration and they are situated in different districts, the original application can be transferred. However, in the present case where a single property is cited, stating it is situated in the Trichy district. Mentioning as Ariyalur registration district, does not confer jurisdiction to Ariyalur district. Merely mentioning multiple names within the same application does not alter the jurisdictional boundaries. The correct jurisdiction, in this instance, is determined by the primary location of the property, which, in this case, is Trichy district, reaffirming DRT Madurai's rightful jurisdiction over this legal matter. Under the wrongful assumptions the bank and the auction purchaser wants to manipulate the jurisdictional details without valid grounds constitutes a grave misinterpretation of the legal provisions.

Furthermore, it is crucial to find that the mention of Ariyalur registration district in the property schedule does not confer territorial jurisdiction to Ariyalur district, as the Sub-Registrar office is itself is situated at Trichy District. Further, under similar property as above stated wherein the Recovery Officer of the Madurai carried out the execution. However, this property under challenge cannot be an exception to send it to DRT III Chennai for execution. Further, during the period of transferring the order for execution to DRT III Chennai there were two Recovery Officers available at Madurai.

The actual jurisdiction is determined by the physical location of the property, which, in this case, is within the local limits of Trichy district. Merely referencing Ariyalur Registration district for administrative purposes does not alter the fundamental jurisdiction of the property, reiterating that the rightful jurisdiction falls exclusively within the boundaries of DRT Madurai for execution.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the sale and pleased to allow the appeal in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience and thus render justice.

MAIN GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL:

1. The Order of the Recovery Officer is erroneous, Ex-facie Illegal, contrary to law, fact and probabilities of the case.

2. The Entire Action taken by the Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai is ab-initio void for want of jurisdiction. All the Order are wholly without jurisdiction and hence liable to be set aside.

3. The OA was filed before DRT Madurai and Debt Recovery Certificate was obtained at Madurai based on the cause of action arising at Trichy. The property sought to be attached and sold is also at Trichy which is within the jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer DRT Madurai as per Section 31(1) and (23) of the Act.

4. The Debts Recovery Officer knowing full well that he lacks jurisdiction has proceeded to issue order of attachment and sale notice, which are all illegal and liable to be set aside. The consequential sale, sale confirmation and issuance of sale certificate and its registration by Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai are also equally without jurisdiction and liable to set aside.

5. The Debts Recovery Officer had with malafide intent proceeded with the case assuming jurisdiction at Ariyalur district which is not so. The Sub-Registrar office of the schedule property vest with Uppilapuram which is situated in Trichy District.

6. The Debts Recovery Officer had failed to see that there is no estoppels against statute and also failed to follow the procedures contemplated for attachment and sale of the property.

7. The Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai also failed to publish the sale notice in two leading news papers as contemplated.

8. The property was undervalued and no proper valuation as contemplated was done. Thereby, the Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai failed to secure the best price for the property.

9. The Recovery Officer failed to see that the property was grossly undervalued as against the prevailing market price, this undervaluation on the part of the 1st Respondent would seriously affect the rights of the petitioner.

10. Without prejudice to the above contentions it is stated that the order passed by the Recovery Officer and finding given by the Recovery Officer to dismiss the Application is perverse. Without denying or rejecting the grounds raised by the petitioner, the Recovery Officer had simply dismissed the petition stating that the property is already sold and thus violated the mandatory procedure contemplated as per law.

11. The Recovery officer ought to have sought clarification from this Hon’ble Tribunal with regard to his jurisdiction and should have returned the case to DRT Madurai as contemplated under the Act and Rules.

12. The Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai has contravened the provisions of the Income Tax Rules which are applicable under the Act and hatched criminal conspiracy with the auction purchaser and the bank officials for personal gain.

13. The Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai sent a letter dated 06.09.2021 addressing as Sub-Registrar, Upiliapuram, Ariyalur District which is incorrect. However, while registering sale certificate he sent another letter dated 22.04.2022 as Sub-Registrar Uppilapuram, Trichy District. And the reasons are best known to him.

14. The Recovery Officer, DRT, Madurai, in another similar case has issued auction sale at Madurai itself whereas in this particular case it has been sent to Recovery officer, DRT III, Chennai.

15. The Recovery Officer failed to see that in the judgment reported in the case of Chanda Engineers (India) Ltd. V.U.C.O Bank, AIR 2005 Cal 28 that the Tribunal is empowered to make all such orders to give directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.

16. The Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai ought to have complied with the Judgment in Harjinder Singh –Vs- the Recovery Officer-II and others case. The Appellant has no other speedy, efficacious alternative and adequate remedy except to invoke this Hon'ble Tribunal.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES

Item No.1:- Trichy District, Ariyalur Re-District, Uppilaipuram Sub Registration District, Thuraiyur Taluk, in Sobanapuram Village Ayan Punja Land in an extent of 1.58 acres S.No.453/1 out of 3.16 acres bounded as follows:- East of : Sikka Kavudar, Karkarar and Sellapurmal land North of : Demban Parai Odai South of : East west common pathway West of : Reserve forest and Duraisamy land Item No.2:- Trichy District, Ariyalur Re-District, Uppilaipuram Sub Registration District, Thuraiyur Taluk, in Sobanapuram Village Ayan Punja Land in an extent of 1.58 acres S.No.453/1 out of 3.16 acres bounded as follows:- East of : Ganesan, Kandasamy and Shanmugam lands North of : Demban Parai Odai South of : East west common pathway West of : Land in S.F.No.453/3

Item No.3:- Trichy District, Ariyalur Re-District, Uppilaipuram Sub Registration District, Thuraiyur Taluk, in Sobanapuram Village Ayan Punja Land in an extent of 1.21 acres S.No.453/3 bounded as follows:- East of : Item no.2 land mentioned above

North of : Demban Parai Odai

South of : East west common pathway

West of : Reserve forest and Pachamuthu Udayar land With absolute, right in the well and 7.5 HP MPS S.No.230 with mamool right of pathway and all easementary rights.

TYPED SET OF PAPERS FILED BY THE APPELLANT

S.No. Date Particulars

12.09.2009 MOD

- Revenue document of Property

27.07.2018 Recovery Certificate issued by DRT, Madurai

16.08.2018 Demand Notice issued by RO, DRT-III, Chennai

06.09.2021 Order of Attachment by RO DRT III Chennai

06.09.2021 Letter sent by RO DRT III Chennai to Uppilapuram Sub Registrar

02.12.2021 Notice of Sale Proclamation by RO DRT III Chennai

13.01.2022 OTS letter sent to Bank

29.01.2022 E-Auction sale by RO DRT III Chennai

29.03.2022 order passed by RO DRT III Chennai

21.04.2022 Order of Confirmation of sale by RO DRT III Chennai

22.04.2022 Certificate of Sale Registered by RO DRT III Chennai

06.05.2022 Order in WP (MD) No. 6822/2022 Hon'ble High Court Madurai Bench

- Demand Drafts for payment of condition imposed by Hon'ble High Court

13.05.2022 Letter of acknowledgment of DD by Bank

17.05.2022 Representation sent to bank

11.07.2022 Order in W.P.(MD) No. 9533/2022

13.07.2022 Letter sent by DVAC

26.07.2022 Letter sent by Advocate Commissioner for taking Physical Possession

- Photo showing Agricultural paddy field

Comprehensive 1st, 2nd and 3rd Typed Set pages filed on behalf of the Appellants in SR. No.1716, 3174 & 7834/2023

S.No. Date Particulars

20.07.2018 Farmer Certificate showing jurisdiction of property

09.11.2020 Similar Property auctioned by Recovery Officer of Madurai itself

- Proof of Territorial jurisdiction from Google website

09.03.2023 RTI Application to CPIO DRT-III Chennai

16.03.2023 Reply sent by DRT-III Chennai

30.03.2023 Reply sent by CPIO/Section Officer DRT Madurai

09.03.2023 RTI Application to CPIO DRAT Chennai

18.04.2023 Reply/Information sent by CPIO/Section Officer DRAT, Chennai

18.05.2023 Letter to Public Information Officer, District Collector, Ariyalur under RTI

23.06.2023 Reply by PIO District Collector Ariyalur & Postal Cover & Translated Copy

18.05.2023 Letter to PIO District Collector Govt. of Tamil Nadu Tiruchirapalli District

08.09.2023 Reply letter from PIO District Collector, Tiruchirapalli District & Postal Cover & Translated copy

2. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent Bank filed the counter statement contending that the Petitioner/Appellant herein had availed two loan facilities, namely KCC limit of Rs. 50,000/- and Agricultural Term Loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 28.07.2009 from the 1st Respondent by executing the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 12.09.2009 in favour of the 1st Respondent and registered the same at SRO, Upiliapuram vide Document No. 1820/2009. The Petitioner has failed to comply with the agreed Terms & Conditions in repayment of loan dues to the 1st Respondent Bank. As such, when such two loan accounts were classified as NPA account, the 1st Respondent had filed the suit before this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 581 of 2013 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 99,221/- towards KCC loan account and Rs. 13,45,287/- towards the Term Loan account thereby totally Rs. 14,37,508/- as on 31.07.2013 together with interest at the rate of 14.75% per annum w.e.f. 31.07.2013 till realization in full.

It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Tribunal had sent the Summons dated 28.10.2013 to the Petitioner who had acknowledged the receipt of the same on 04.11.2013. Despite the receipt of the aforesaid summons by the Petitioner herein, he remained with callous and supine attitude without contesting the case and paved the way for this Tribunal to set him ex-parte on 14.07.2014. After having passed through various processes, this Hon'ble Tribunal had passed the Final Order on 06.07.2018 by directing the Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 99,221/- towards KCC loan and Rs. 13,45,287/- towards the Term Loan together

with future interest. And, the Hon'ble PO had issued the DRC No. 308/2018 on 27.07.2018 by directing the Recovery Officer to recover such debt dues as per law in force.

It is further submitted that the Registrar, DRT Madurai had sent the DRC File along with another file to the Registrar, DRT-III, Chennai for execution of the DRC. The Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai had issued the Demand Notice dated 16.08.2018 to the Petitioner herein calling upon him to deposit the above said quantum of amount as recorded in the DRC within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice by him. The alleged averments as narrated in the appeal in respect of territorial jurisdictional aspect is not at all maintainable under law. Further, there was no mala- fide transfer as alleged by the Petitioner and the Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai had exercised such execution proceedings acquired with full jurisdiction and accordingly issued the Order of Attachment, Sale Notice, Sale Certificate and all further consequential actions and accordingly recovered the debt dues to the 1st Respondent Bank from the Petitioner herein by way of sale of the secured mortgaged assets for better price then held in the name of the Petitioner. Therefore, the entire action of the Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai and the transfer effected by DRT, Madurai was not erroneous, Ex-facie illegal, contrary to law, fact and probabilities of the case as alleged by the Petitioner. In fact, the entire action of the RO, DRT-III, Chennai and the transfer effected by DRT, Madurai are all in accordance with law, Rules, Procedures of RDB Act, 1993 without giving scope for any violation of such Regulations, Rules and Procedures in force. From the perusal of the entire mortgaged documents, it is clearly mentioned that the Registration District of those items of property comes under the purview of Ariyalur Registration District only. The SRO, Uppiliapuram has been under the control of Ariyalur Registration District only and not under the control of Tiruchirappalli Registration District as alleged by the Petitioner. Since, the property in question is situated within the Ariyalur Registration District, DRT Madurai has rightly transferred the DRC to DRT-III, Chennai for execution.

It is further submitted that the RO, DRT-III, Chennai had obtained the valuation report dated 22.01.2021 from the Panel Engineer and the realizable value is Rs. 24.50/- Lakhs. Because of heavy competition between 5 bidders, the property was sold out for Rs. 64 Lakhs to the successful bidder, the 2nd Respondent herein. Therefore, the alleged averment as stated by the Petitioner that his property was undervalued and not sold out for better price is totally falsified and misleading statement. The secured mortgaged assets were actually sold out for better price two times more than the value arrived at by the Panel Engineer. Hence, such allegation is untenable and unsustainable in law.

It is further submitted that the RO, DRT-III, Chennai had issued the order of attachment of immovable property dated 06.09.2021 and sent such communication to the Petitioner herein as well as to Sub Registrar, Uppiliapuram to make necessary attachment entry in the books of such SRO. In the meantime, the 1st Respondent herein had offered One Time Settlement to the Petitioner herein and accordingly sent offer letter dated 08.10.2021 severally for two such loan limits availed by the Petitioner. But, the Petitioner herein had neither submitted any acceptance of offer nor taken any efforts to comply with such of the conditions as enumerated in the aforesaid OTS offer letter, thereby, thoroughly failed to avail such of the opportunity extended by the 1st Respondent.

It is further submitted that the RO, DRT-III, Chennai had issued a Notice for setting a Sale Proclamation dated 02.12.2021 and sent such communication to the Petitioner herein. Despite, the receipt of such communication by the Petitioner on 17.12.2021, he failed to settle the loan dues to the 1st Respondent. As a fact, the RO, DRT-III, Chennai had published such notice for setting a sale proclamation dated 02.12.2021 in English daily, The New Indian Express dated 23.12.2021 and in Tamil daily Dinamani dated 23.12.2021. Subsequently, the Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai had issued E-Auction Sale Notice dated 29.01.2022 by fixing the date of E-Auction on 17.03.2022 between 11.00 hrs. and 12.00 hrs. The Recovery Officer has given wide publicity by issuing pamphlets in

English and Tamil Language within the vicinity of Thuraiyur Taluk and nearby area apart from publishing such Sale Notice in English daily 'The New Indian Express' and in Tamil daily 'Dinamani' both dated 04.02.2022. The aforesaid Sale Notice was affixed in the conspicuous place of the secured mortgaged assets and to that effect photographs were also taken as evidence for the compliance of the procedures in vogue. Despite the receipt of such Sale Notice, by the Petitioner herein on 04.02.2022, he never made any attempt to settle loan dues to the 1st Respondent. The E- Auction sale was conducted on 17.03.2022 in compliance to the Rules and procedures as narrated in the aforesaid Sale Notice and out of the 5 bidders participated in the E-Auction sale proceedings, the 2nd Respondent herein was declared as the highest bidder. Accordingly, the 2nd Respondent herein had remitted the full auctioned amount of Rs. 64,00,000/- on various dates namely, 14.03.2022, 17.03.2022, 21.03.2022 and 23.03.2022.

It is further submitted that instead of settling the loan dues to the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) by filing Writ Petition bearing W.P.(MD) No. 4719 of 2022 by challenging the aforesaid Sale Notice. However, such Writ Petition was dismissed on 17.03.2022. Subsequently, the Petitioner herein had filed IA No. 9 of 2022 in TRC. No. 88 of 2018 before the Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai by challenging the aforesaid Sale Notice. However, the aforesaid I.A was also dismissed on 29.03.2022.

It is further submitted that since the 2nd Respondent herein was declared as successful bidder and there was no stay from any of the forum in respect of the aforesaid sale concluded, the Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai has issued the order of confirmation of sale of immovable property in favour of the 2nd Respondent herein by endorsing a copy to the Petitioner herein. Subsequently, the Recovery Officer had sent a letter dated 22.04.2022 to the SRO, Uppiliapuram by enclosing the Sale Certificate held in the name of the 2nd Respondent with the request to register such Sale Certificate in favour of the 2nd Respondent. Accordingly, the certificate of Sale of immovable property dated 22.04.2022 was registered in favour of the 2nd Respondent herein at SRO, Uppiliapuram as document No. 1039 of 2022 on 27.04.2022. Such of the entry had also been recorded in the Encumbrance Certificate dated 28.04.2022. The 1st Respondent herein had sent a letter dated 29.04.2022 to the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk, enclosing therewith the proceedings of the Recovery Officer DRT – III, Chennai dated 29.04.2022 to make necessary entries in the revenue records about the transfer of conveyance effected as aforesaid.

It is further submitted that the Petitioner herein had approached the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court by filing a Writ Petition challenging the Sale Notice dated 29.01.2022 as well as against the order of IA No. 9 of 2022 in TRC.No. 82 of 2018 passed by the RO, DRT-III, Chennai. By suppressing the real facts, the Petitioner had obtained the interim injunction on 06.05.2022 in W.P.(MD) No. 9533 of 2022. At the time of obtaining such interim injunction, the E-Auction sale proceedings was concluded and certificate of sale of immovable property dated 22.04.2022 had also been registered on 27.04.2022 in favour of the 2nd Respondent. Knowing fully aware of such fact, the Petitioner herein by hiding such facts and without disclosing such facts, by way of suppressing such facts had obtained such interim injunction. The 1st Respondent herein in order to comply with the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) had sent a letter dated 13.05.2022 to the Petitioner herein by enclosing there with the two Demand Drafts as described in the aforesaid letter sent by the Petitioner by informing that the loan account of the Petitioner was already closed on 02.05.2022 upon receipt of the outstanding amount of Rs. 49,13,171/- as on 17.03.2022 with all interest and charges through IOB-Spencer Plaza Branch from the Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai.

The 1st Respondent herein had sent a letter dated 16.05.2022 by communicating the calculation sheet about the loan account of the Petitioner which was closed on 02.05.2022. The Petitioner has acknowledged the receipt of such letter by him on 19.05.2022. The 1st

Respondent had also sent another letter dated 21.05.2022 to the Petitioner herein which was also acknowledged by the Petitioner on 21.05.2022. The 1st Respondent herein had filed the vacate stay Petition before the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court by submitting all the above said facts about the E-auction sale concluded and the closure of the loan account of the Petitioner and the communication sent to the Petitioner with regard to the calculation of interest on loan account etc. Considering the said facts, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) had dismissed the Writ Petition bearing WP (MD) No. 9533 of 2022 on 11.07.2022. Since, there was no stay in the above said sale concluded, the Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai had appointed an Advocate Commissioner and issued warrant on 25.07.2022 to the Advocate Commissioner to take Physical Possession of the aforesaid sold-out item of property and to hand over the effective Physical Possession to the 1st Respondent herein. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner took Physical Possession of the said property and handed over the same to 1st Respondent herein on 29.07.2022 and the 1st Respondent in turn handed over the same to the 2nd Respondent herein on 29.07.2022.

It is further submitted that on 26.07.2022, the Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai had sent a letter to the Assistant General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Cathedral Road Branch, Chennai by surrendering the FDR No. 2017/NDRB/0862389 dated 27.05.2022 for Rs. 15,50,839/- with the request to deduct Rs. 64,010/- from the maturity value of the aforesaid FDR and credited the same into the A/C No.163302000000200 and to transfer the balance proceeds into the account of the Petitioner herein bearing A/C No. 30829236567 with State Bank of India, Thuraiyur Branch. Such communication had been sent to the Petitioner herein as well as to the 1st Respondent herein along with the credit and debit vouchers. As directed by the Recovery Officer DRT III, Chennai, balance proceeds of Rs. 14,93,309/- had been transferred into the aforesaid SB account of the Petitioner on 27.07.2022.

It is further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai had initiated the action for taking Physical Possession of the sold out secured assets and sent letter to the Sub Inspector of Police, Uppiliyapuram, Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Musuri, the Commissioner of Police, Trichy dated 27.07.2022, the Village Administrative Officer, Thuraiyur Village dated 28.07.2022 and to the 1st Respondent herein dated 29.07.2022 with a request to extend their assistance for taking Physical Possession of the sold out secured assets and to hand over the same to the 1st Respondent herein. The 1st Respondent herein had returned back the two demand drafts namely Bank of Baroda demand draft No. 297403 dated 11.04.2022 for Rs. 5,00,000/- and Indian Overseas Bank Demand Draft no. 785626 dated 13.05.2022 for Rs. 5,34,632/- to the Petitioner herein through a letter dated 10.08.2022 by informing that in terms of the dismissal order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) on 11.07.2022 in WP (MD) No. 9533 of 2022 and in WMP (MD) No. 6822 of 2022 and in view of the loan account of the Petitioner was closed on 02.05.2022 itself and the Physical Possession of the property then held in the name of the Petitioner had been effectively handed over to the 2nd Respondent on 29.07.2022. However, the aforesaid envelope addressed to the Petitioner herein containing the above said letter and the above mentioned two demand drafts was returned back to the 1st Respondent herein with the postal endorsement that the addressee refused to receive on 13.08.2022. The 1st Respondent herein had sent a letter dated 20.08.2022 to the Petitioner herein by informing the above said facts about his refusal to receive the envelope containing the aforesaid demand draft and letter dated 10.08.2022 as well as brought to his notice that the aforesaid two demand drafts have become stale and accordingly requested him to collect those two demand drafts for revalidating the same as early as possible. Such envelope was also returned back as undelivered with the postal endorsement stating that addressee refused to receive the same. The Advocate Commissioner had filed his report on 12.08.2022 before the Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai by informing that the effective Physical Possession was taken peacefully with the assistance of the above said officials without affecting the Petitioner's interest and handed over the same to the 1st Respondent herein on 29.07.2022.

It is further submitted that the 1st Respondent herein had filed a Petition before this Hon'ble Tribunal for return of documents so as to enable the 1st Respondent to hand over the same to the 2nd Respondent herein. This Hon'ble Tribunal has passed the order on 12.08.2022 by directing the Registry to return the mortgaged documents. Accordingly, the Registry has released the documents on 19.09.2022 to the 1st Respondent herein in furtherance to their letter dated 03.09.2022 communicated to the 1st Respondent herein and the 1st Respondent handed over the same to the 2nd Respondent on 19.09.2022.

It is further submitted that right from the date of filing of OA, passing of final order, issuance of Recovery Certificate, issuance of Demand Notice, issuance of notice for setting a sale proclamation, issuance of E-Auction Sale Notice, Paper Publication thereof, E-auction sale proceedings, sale of the property for two times more than the value arrived at by the Panel Engineer, declaration of the successful bidder, issuance of sale confirmation letter, registration of certificate of sale of immovable property, closure of account out of the sale proceeds, appointment of Advocate Commissioner, effective handing over of the Physical Possession of the property to the 2nd Respondent through the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai, credit of residual sale proceeds given into the SB account of the Petitioner, handed over the documents to the 2nd Respondent all such cogent actions were happened without any iota of violation and within the framed structures of enshrined provisions of RDB Act, 1993.

It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the above Appeal No.1 of 2022 and thus render justice.

INDEX TO THE TYPED SET OF PAPERS FILED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT

S.No. Date Description

28.10.2013 Summons sent by this Tribunal to the Petitioner

04.11.2013 Postal acknowledgement executed by the Petitioner for the receipt of the aforesaid summons

06.07.2018 Certified true copy of diary issued by this Tribunal in respect of OA No. 581 of 2013

12.09.2009 Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds for the creation of EM for the Term Loan/Overall limit executed by the Petitioner in favour of the 1st Respondent

06.07.2018 Final Order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.

27.07.2018 Recovery Certificate under DRC No. 308/2018 in respect of OA No. 581/2013

31.07.2018 Letter sent by this Tribunal to the Registrar, DRT-III, Chennai for execution of DRC proceedings in respect of OA No. 581 of 2013

16.08.2018 Demand Notice sent by the Recovery Officer DRT-III, Chennai to the Petitioner

03.10.2018 Letter from this Tribunal to the Recovery Officer DRT-III, Chennai forwarding original documents in respect of OA No. 581 of 2013 and for other cases

22.01.2021 Valuation Report furnished by the Panel Engineer in respect of the secured mortgaged assets in OA No. 581 of

06.09.2021 Order of Attachment of immovable property sent by the Recovery Officer DRT-III, Chennai to the Petitioner and others

06.09.2021 Attachment order sent by the Recovery Officer DRT-III, Chennai to the Sub Registrar, Upiliapuram

08.10.2021 Offer of One Time Settlement letter sent to the Petitioner in respect of KCC Limit A/C. No. 37965818732

08.10.2021 Offer of One Time Settlement letter sent to the Petitioner in respect of ATL A/C. No. 39027998419

02.12.2021 Notice for setting a Sale Proclamation sent by the Recovery Officer DRT-III, Chennai to the Petitioner

17.12.2021 Postal acknowledgement duly executed by the Petitioner for the receipt of the above said notice

23.12.2021 Paper Publication of the Notice for setting a Sale Proclamation effected in English daily The New Indian Express

23.12.2021 Paper Publication of the notice for setting a Sale Proclamation effected in Tamil Daily Dinamani

05.01.2022 Valuation Report filed by the Panel Engineer

13.01.2022 Offer of One Time Settlement letter dated 05.01.2022 sent to the Petitioner in respect of KCC Limit A/C. No. 37965818732

13.01.2022 Offer of One Time Settlement letter sent to the Petitioner in respect of ATL A/C. No. 39027998419

29.01.2022 E-Auction Sale Notice issued by the Recovery Officer DRT-

III, Chennai

29.01.2022 E-Auction Sale Notice issued by the Recovery Officer DRT- III, Chennai published through pamphlets

04.02.2022 Paper Publication of E-Auction Sale Notice dated 29.01.2022 published in English daily The New Indian Express

04.02.2022 Paper Publication of E-Auction Sale Notice dated 29.01.2022 published in Tamil daily Dinamani

04.02.2022 Postal acknowledgement duly executed by the Petitioner for the receipt of the aforesaid E-Auction Sale notice

04.02.2022 Postal Track record for having delivered the aforesaid E- Auction Sale Notice to the Petitioner

17.03.2022 E-Auction proceedings issued by the Recovery Officer DRT- III, Chennai

14.02.2022 17.03.2022 21.03.2022 23.03.2022 Payment Receipts for the payment made by the 2nd Respondent as the Auction Purchaser

17.03.2022 Dismissal order issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench- Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No.

29.03.2022 Dismissal Order issued by the Recovery Officer DRT-III, Chennai in IA No. 9 of 2022 in TRC No. 88 of 2018

29.01.2022 E-Auction Sale Notice issued by the Recovery Officer DRT- III, Chennai affixed in the conspicuous place of the secured mortgaged assets along with photographs

04.02.2022 Postal acknowledgement duly executed by the Petitioner for the receipt of the aforesaid E-Auction Sale notice

17.03.2022 E-Auction proceedings issued by the Recovery Officer DRT- III, Chennai

21.04.2022 Order of confirmation of sale of immovable property issued in favour of the 2nd Respondent by endorsing a copy to the Petitioner by the Recovery Officer DRT-III, Chennai

22.04.2022 Letter sent by the Recovery Officer DRT-III, Chennai to the Sub Registrar, Uppiliapuram enclosing therewith Sale Certificate dated 22.04.2022 held in the name of the 2nd Respondent

27.04.2022 Certificate of Sale of immovable property dated 22.04.2022 issued to the 2nd Respondent by the Recovery Officer DRT- III, Chennai and registered as document No. 1039/2022 at SRO, Uppiliapuram

28.04.2022 Online Encumbrance Certificate taken out from the website of SRO, Uppiliapuram for the period from 01.01.1975 to 27.04.2022

29.04.2022 Proceedings of the Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai handing over of Physical Possession of the property to the Auction Purchaser-2nd Respondent along with photographs

29.04.2022 Letter sent from the 1st Respondent to the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk Office

06.05.2022 An order of interim injunction passed by the Division Bench-Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No. 9533 of 2022

13.05.2022 Letter sent from the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner and acknowledged by the Petitioner

16.05.2022 Letter sent by the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner enclosing therewith calculation sheet-account statement

18.05.2022 Letter dated 17.05.2022 received from the Petitioner in the office of the 1st Respondent

19.05.2022 Postal acknowledgement duly executed by the Petitioner for the receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 16.05.2022

21.05.2022 Letter sent from the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner

21.05.2022 Postal acknowledgement duly executed by the Petitioner for the receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 17.05.2022

11.07.2022 Dismissal Order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench- Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.

25.07.2022 Warrant issued by the Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai to the Advocate Commissioner

26.07.2022 Letter sent by the Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai to the AGM, IOB, Chennai for the closure of fixed deposits along with credit and debit vouchers

26.07.2022 Letter sent by the 1st Respondent to the Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur, Superintendent of Police, Trichy for police assistance to take Physical Possession of the sold out immovable property

10.08.2022 A letter sent by the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner along with enclosures returned envelope

12.08.2022 Report filed by the Advocate Commissioner with enclosures

12.08.2022 Proceedings on the Hon'ble PO in OA No. 581 of 2013 – original mortgaged documents released on 19.09.2022

20.08.2022 Letter sent by the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner along with enclosures – returned envelope – addressee refused

06.09.2022 Letter sent by the Registrar to the 1st Respondent with a direction to collect the original documents from the registry

01.12.2022 Statement of Account denoting the credit of the residual sale proceeds amount of Rs. 14,99,913.14/- into the SB account of the Petitioner

3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent/Auction Purchaser filed the Counter Affidavit contending that after seeing the E- Auction Sale Notice dated 29.01.2022 for the sale to be held on 17.03.2022 published by the Recovery Officer, DRT–III, Chennai in English daily, The New Indian Express and in Tamil daily Dinamani both dated 04.02.2022, I have participated as one of the bidders on 17.03.2022 for purchasing the scheduled property as described in the aforesaid Paper Publication. To that effect, he has quoted the bid amount of Rs. 64,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs only) for the purchase of the aforesaid scheduled property through E-Auction sale and he was declared as the successful bidder by the Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai.

It is further submitted that as directed by the Authorities concerned, he has remitted Rs. 2,50,000/- on 14.03.2022 and Rs. 16,00,000/- on 17.03.2022 as the 25% of sale consideration price amount less EMD Amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- already paid, thereby fully complied with the directions of the Authorities concerned. Subsequently, I have remitted Rs. 19,00,000/- on 21.03.2022 and Rs. 27,14,010/- on 23.03.2022, thereby fully paid the sale consideration amount of Rs. 64,00,000/-, plus 1% of Poundage Fee Rs. 64,000/- + Rs. 10/- into the account of the Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai. All such payments were made through State Bank of India, Thuraiyur Branch, through remittance vouchers.

It is further submitted that after knowing the purchase of the property by the 2nd Respondent, the Petitioner and his wife had tresspassed into his house on 09.04.2022 and threatened my family members with dire consequences. Further, the Petitioner had used unparliamentarily words against my family members. Immediately on 10.04.2022 my mother had lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppiliapuram Police Station to take action against the Petitioner and his wife. To that effect, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppiliapuram Police Station had issued CSR receipt. Since, the Petitioner is highly influenced person, politically and financially in that area, the said Police Officials did not take any action against the Petitioner and his family members. He is the bonafide and lawful Auction Purchaser of the property in the appeal for lawful consideration through E-Auction conducted by the DRT-III, Chennai for which he has invested his hard-earned money as a big investment in his life. Further, it is submitted that he is a bonafide purchaser and his valuable right as Legal Title holder of the property is entitled to protection. Despite that, he and his family members are under threat from the Petitioner and his family members till date.

It is further submitted that having fully complied with all the rules and procedures in force in respect of the sale of immovable property through E-Auction Sale procedures conducted by the Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, on 17.03.2022 and having received the full sale consideration amount of Rs. 64,00,000/- together with poundage fee etc., the Recovery Officer had issued the Order of confirmation of sale of immovable property dated 21.04.2022 to the 2nd Respondent, by endorsing a copy to the Petitioner. Subsequently, the Recovery Officer had issued the certificate of Sale of Immovable Property dated 22.04.2022 and the same had been duly registered in the name of 2nd Respondent at the Sub- Registration Office, Uppiliapuram on 27.04.2022.

It is further submitted that in the revenue records, Patta for the aforesaid land had also been changed in his name as Patta No. 3284 for the land held in S.No.453/1 and Patta No. 3285 for the land held in S.No.453/3 within Sobanapuram Revenue Village vide order dated 16.05.2022 and 10.05.2022 respectively. The 2nd Respondent was impleaded as the 4th Respondent in W.P. (MD) No. 9533 of 2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) by the Petitioner herein. He had appeared through Counsel and filed detailed counter. Taking into account his submissions made before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the aforesaid Writ Petition was dismissed on 11.07.2022.

Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the RO, DRT-III, Chennai. The Advocate Commissioner took possession of the property in question and gave it to the 1st Respondent on 29.07.2022 and the 1st Respondent in turn handed over the Physical Possession of the said property to the 2nd Respondent. From 29.07.2022 onwards, the 2nd Respondent has been continuously enjoying the said property as the lawful owner without any interruptions and cultivating such land and harvested the crop one time and again made cultivation in some of the part and proposed to cultivate the remaining part soon. The revenue authorities had issued patta, chitta, Adangal in my name for the purchased property. The EB service has also been changed in my name vide order dated 28.04.2022 from the petitioner's name.

It is further submitted that it is a well settled principle that Right of Redemption stands extinguished once the Sale Certificate is registered as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dwarika Prasad and Shakeena cases. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner is totally devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed with costs, and, it is just and proper to dismiss the Appeal Petition since the same is per-se illegal, suppression, misleading and misrepresentation of the material facts to this Hon'ble Tribunal and more particularly the Petitioner has no locus-standi to prefer any claim over such item of property through appeal as the purchase made by the 2nd Respondent as the successful bidder for the fair value sale consideration amount of Rs. 64,00,000/- and registered the sale with the concerned SRO and hence, no right of redemption is available for the Petitioner at this juncture.

Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the Appeal No. 1 of 2022 with costs and thus render justice.

4. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE PLEADINGS THE POINTS WHICH ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION ARE:-

I. Whether the Applicant has been able to prove his case in his favour?

II. Whether the Applicant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

5. Having heard the parties and after perusal of records including the documents, I find that it is admitted fact that the Appellant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from the 1st Defendant Bank towards Agricultural loan on 12.01.2009 and the mortgaged schedule of property is also an agricultural property. But the Appellant has failed to repay the loan amounts properly, hence, his account became NPA and the 1st Defendant Bank has filed OA No. 581/13, before the DRT, Madurai for the recovery of loan amount Rs. 14,37,508/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Eight only) and obtained an Ex-Parte order dated

06.07.2018 and thereafter DRC No.

was issued on 27.07.2018 by DRT, Madurai and the case was transferred to DRT-III, Chennai for execution of ex-parte order. In compliance to the order the Recovery Officer issued an order of Attachment on 06.09.2021 and also the Sale Notice dated 29.01.2022 fixing the auction on 17.03.2022. The Appellant has challenged the order of the Recovery Officer on the ground that the RO, DRT-III, Chennai has no jurisdiction to entertain the decree of OA passed in OA 581/13. Because the property is situated within the jurisdiction of Madurai and the 1st Defendant Bank has filed the OA before DRT, Madurai and Final Order was passed by DRT, Madurai. Hence, the Sale, Sale confirmation and issuance of Sale Certificate and its registration by the RO, DRT-III, Chennai are equally without the jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

I perused the OA 581/13 and I find that the Bank has filed this case before DRT, Madurai for recovery of loan amount of Rs. 14,37,508/- together with interest at the rate enumerated in this Application from the date of Application till realization. The case was heard ex-parte as the borrower failed to appear in this case, the argument of the Appellant Bank was heard and an Order was passed in favour of the Appellant Bank. I also find that accordingly, DRC was prepared and sent to the RO, DRT-III, Chennai for execution of the Order and the RO, DRT-III, Chennai executed the decree and satisfied the loan dues of the Appellant Bank.

Now, the points for consideration before me are that whether the execution of decree by the Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai is without Jurisdiction?

For that I perused the documents filed by the Appellant.

Appellant's property is situated at Shobanapuram, Uppiliyapuram, Thuraiyur Taluk, Ariyalur Registration District, Trichy District, as it appears from perusal of the Schedule of property, the Appellant has also enclosed the Farmer certificate issued by the Tahsildar, District Tiruchirapalli, Thuraiyur Taluk which clearly indicates that the schedule of property is falling under the Trichy District. The Appellant has

also filed the documents obtained from the official website of Government of Tamilnadu regarding territorial jurisdiction of the property, which is situated at Trichy District, which is available at page nos. 5 to 11 of comprehensive typed set of papers filed by the Appellant. From perusal of these documents, I find that the Schedule of Property falls under the District of Tiruchirappalli.

The Appellant has also enclosed information obtained under Right to Information Act, which is available at page no. 16-17 of additional typeset. I perused this document and I find that this document was issued by DRT, Madurai dated 30.03.2023, which confirmed that the schedule of property exclusively falls under the Jurisdiction of DRT Madurai. The Appellant has also filed the information obtained under the RTI Act from the Hon'ble DRAT on 09th March 2023, which is available at page nos. 18- 19 of the comprehensive Addl. Typed set of pages, which also confirms that the schedule of property is coming under the Trichy District.

Apart from that, the Appellant has filed a document obtained under the RTI Act from the District Collector, Ariyalur District, Government of Tamil Nadu on 18.05.2023, which is also available at page nos. 22-23 of the additional typeset of papers. It clearly indicates that the schedule of property is under the Trichy District. The District Collector, Trichy has also informed under the RTI Act, that the schedule of property exclusively falls under the jurisdiction of Trichy District.

The Appellant has further filed document in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of the schedule of property which is available at page no. 16 of the Additional type set of papers. It is the official notification No. G- 26036/2/2005-DRT dated 09.01.2007 and amended last notification No. SO-4717(E), SO-4718(E) and SO-4719(E) dated 04.10.2022, which also shows that the schedule of property is under the jurisdiction of Trichy District and falls under the purview of DRT, Madurai.

From perusal of entire documents regarding the territorial jurisdiction, I find that schedule of property is situated under the Trichy District, which falls under the Jurisdiction of Madurai DRT.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the 1st Respondent Bank has submitted that the registration district of the Scheduled items of property comes under the purview of Ariyalur Registration District only. The Sub- Registration Office, Uppiliyapuram has been under the control of Ariyalur Registration District only and not under the control of Tiruchirappalli Registration District as alleged by the Petitioner and since the property in question is situated within the Ariyalur Registration District, DRT, Madurai has transferred the DRC to DRT III, Chennai for execution.

I find that the Respondent Bank has only mentioned the Registration District of the Schedule of Property and has not replied to the query of the Appellant that the property is situated at Trichy. On the other hand, from perusal of documents filed by the Appellant in respect of the Jurisdiction of the property, I find that the document produced by the Appellant clearly shows that the property is situated at Trichy District and the Trichy District falls under the Jurisdiction of Madurai DRT. So, it is established that the property situated in the Trichy District comes under the purview of DRT, Madurai.

The Appellant has further alleged that the Debts Recovery Officer, Chennai, knowing fully well that he lacks the jurisdiction has proceeded to issue order of attachment and Sale Notice which are per se illegal and liable to be set aside. Consequential Sale, Sale Confirmation and issuance of Sale Certificate and its registration by Recovery Officer, DRT – III, Chennai are also equally without Jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. The Appellant has also alleged that the Recovery Officer, DRT – III, Chennai has failed to publish the Sale Notice in two leading Newspapers as contemplated and valuation was also not done properly. Before discussing on the above matter, I find that it has been clearly established that the Order passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT – III, Chennai is without Jurisdiction.

So, it is indisputably settled legal proposition that conferment of Jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a Superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality, the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Reliance placed:- United Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230; Smt. Nai Bahu Vs. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. Vs. Navrang Studios & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537; and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213).

In the light of above settled proposition of law, I find that in the instant case, the decree of DRT, Madurai was executed by Recovery Officer, DRT – III, Chennai, who had no jurisdiction to execute a decree as the property is situated at Trichy District which falls under the purview of DRT, Madurai. Once the order passed by a Court, which has no Jurisdiction even if all the procedures are properly followed is not sustainable under the eye of law. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the discussion made above, I find that the Appellant has been able to prove his case, in his favour. Accordingly, it is hereby –

ORDERED

(i) Appeal No. 01/2022 is allowed.

(ii) Orders passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai in IA No.09/2022 dated 29.03.2022 is set aside.

(iii) All the proceedings under TRC 88/2018 (Old DRC No.308/2018 issued by the DRT, Madurai) i.e. order of attachment dated

06.09.2021, Sale Notice dated 29.01.2022, sale proceedings held on 17.03.2022 and Sale Certificate dated 22.04.2022 and the registration of Sale Certificate dated 27.04.2022 are set aside.

(iv) The 1st Respondent Bank is directed to pay the entire sale amount along with 4% interest and charges of Registration of Sale Certificate to the Auction Purchaser namely Shri. K. Navaneethan, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District within 30 days from the date of receipt of this

Order.

(v) The Petitioner is directed to pay the entire Sale amount (after adjusting the payments already made by him, if any) along with 4% interest and registration charges paid by the purchaser to the 1st Respondent Bank within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Failing which, the 1st Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed further for execution of DRC No. 308/2018 before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Madurai.

(vi) The Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar' Office, Uppiliapuram for Cancellation of the Sale Certificate No. 1039/2022 dated 22.04.2022, Registered on 27.04.2022 in the name of Shri. K. Navaneethan. Dictated to PA (DK), taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 23rd July, 2024.

sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

Dictated & Corrected by me

sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

Typed by me (D. Krishnaveni, PA)