SMFG India Home Finance Company limited vs Ram kumar Yadav S/o late Shri Narayan Lal on 30 October 2026

1. The respondent no.1 filed S.A. bearing no.333/2026 titled as **Raj Kumar Yadav V SMFG India Home Finance Company Limited** which was stated to be pending before DRT-Jaipur. DRT-Jaipur on the basis of Court Commissioner Report allowed the S.A. and directed the appellant to restore the possession within 30 days. The impugned order dated 03.08.2026 is reproduced as under:

**In this matter, original title documents are produced for verification. It is stated that it is a Patta issued by Gram Panchayat, Jahota and Panchayat Samiti, Aamer.**

**As per the Court Commissioner's report, neither such Patta was ever issued, nor today is it found on record. Signatures on behalf of Gram Panchayat appearing in page no. 1 and page no. differs. Even Signatures of Ram Kishore Yadav differs. It appears to be on a photocopy, details have been filled up on photocopy.**

**Therefore relying upon Court Commissioner's report, it is hereby observed that respondent do not hold a valid mortgage. As the documents placed by them are not even available in the records.**

**It is declared that respondent has no charge on the property. Copy of this order be sent to the Central Registrar for recording satisfaction of the charge as the respondent has no charge.**

**It is directed that possession be restored to the applicant within 30 days. Accordingly, SA stands disposed of as allowed, all pending IAs also stands disposed of, if any.**

**File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.**

2. Sh. Jitendra Choudhary, Advocate for the appellant argued that the impugned order dated was passed by DRT-Jaipur only on the basis of report of the Court Commissioner and DRT-Jaipur has not looked into the original *Patta* in respect of the subject land dated 13.03.2019 and investigation report and title certificate dated 25.03.2019 submitted by SRM Partners and this document clearly reflects that the respondent no.1 was having valid *Patta* in respect of the subject land in his favour and said land was mortgaged with the appellant. He further argued that DRT-Jaipur should have given a proper opportunity to the contesting parties to produce their respective documents and thereafter on considerations of those documents DRT-Jaipur need to pass the appropriate order. Accordingly, he prayed and argued that the impugned order dated 03.08.2026 be set aside and the S.A. bearing no.333/2026 be remanded back for fresh consideration.

3. Sh. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.1 during the course of argument relied upon the report of the Court Commissioner appointed by DRT-Jaipur vide order 20.05.2026. The perusal of Court Commissioner's report dated 30.06.2026 reflects that the Court Commissioner visited the office of the Tehsildar Rampura Dabri on 10.06.2026 and also conducted the said inspection and on the basis of revenue record, reported that the said *Patta* was not issued in favour of Ram Kishore Yadav and also referred the report of Gram Panchayat, Jahota dated 25.03.2026 wherein it was reported that the *Patta* in respect of the said land was not issued in favour of the respondent no.1. Sh. Raghav Sharma, Advocate defended the impugned order and stated that DRT-Jaipur has rightly held that there was not a valid mortgage in favour of the appellant.

4. It is reflecting from the perusal of the impugned order dated 03.08.2026 that DRT-Jaipur has directed the appellant to restore the possession by relying upon the Court Commissioner's report as discussed hereinabove and also observed that the appellant was not having a valid mortgage. DRT-Jaipur has not considered the other documents as referred by the appellant. The report of the Court Commissioner may be a supporting evidence but cannot be taken as the conclusive evidence to prove one particular fact. The issue whether the *Patta* in respect of the subject land was actually issued in favour of the respondent no.1 should have been decided on the basis of entire documents including the documents as relied upon by the appellants.

5. After considering all facts, the impugned order is set aside and DRT-Jaipur is directed to decide the S.A. bearing no.333/2026 afresh after considering all the necessary and requisite documents including the documents as referred and relied upon by the appellant.

6. The parties are directed to appear on 18.12.2026 before DRT-Jaipur for fresh direction till the disposal of S.A. bearing no.333/2026 or as directed by DRT-Jaipur. The appellant is directed to maintain the *status quo* regarding the possession of the subject property till disposal of S.A. It is also expected that as the respondent no.1 is a senior citizen, DRT-Jaipur shall make every possible endeavour for early disposal of S.A. in accordance with law.

SDJ

---

**(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**

-v\$