Decided on December 08,2005



Motilal B.Naik, - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment in OA No. 229/1995 dated 6.7.2004 made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I(DRT-I) Delhi. THIS appellant is arrayed as 5th defendant in the OA. The OA was filed by the respondent-Bank herein on 7.8.1995 for recovery of certain amounts against nine defendants including this appellant who is arrayed as 5th defendant. The allegation against this appellant is that she stood guarantor for respondent No. 2 herein and had executed an agreement of guarantee dated for the limits allowed to the respondent No. 2 and that the appellant had deposited title deeds of the property bearing plot No. 75, Blook-FA, Mansarovar Garden, Basai Darapur, Delhi measuring 220 sq. yards and created an equitable mortgage of the same in favour of the respondent-Bank. Decree for recovery of Rs, 33,32,5327- along with pendentelite and future interest @2 3.25% p.a. from the date of filing the OA till realisation with costs had been prayed for against this appellant.
(2.) This appellant filed a separate written statement wherein it was averred that the claim of the respondent-Bank was false and frivolous and a clear case of forgery, fraud and impersonation which was carried out in connivance and collusions with the officials of the respondent-Bank. I t was also pleaded in the written statement that the appellant had at no point of time stood as a guarantor for any of the respondents nor had created a mortgage in favour of the respondent-Bank. The date of agreement of guarantee is 14.12.1992 on which date the appellant was not in India and was in USA. The appellant pleaded that she left India for USA on 15.9.1992, reached USA on 16.9.1992 and returned to India only on 4.3.1993. She also filed true copy of the passport of the appellant which was exhibited as DW5/1. The appellant also stated in the written statement that she had no knowledge about any other respondents nor had ever visited the respondent-Bank's branch office or met any officers of the respondent-Bank. The alleged agreement of guarantee dated 14.12.1992 and the letter dated 16.12.1992 regarding confirmation of mortgage are forged documents and did not bear the signatures of the appellant. The entry in the recital register relating to deposit of title deeds made by the officials of the respondent-Bank are totally false as the appellant had never visited the respondent-Bank. The appellant further denied any connection with the address on the letter dated 16.12.1992 alleged to have been written to her regarding confirmation of mortgage and the same was not signed by her. The further stand taken by the appellant is that she is an educated lady having done her M.Sc.(Hons.) and M. Phil and does not know how to read and write Punjabi and has always signed in English and never in Punjabi. She also took a stand that she has been signing as Satwant Nanua after her marriage. In support of her stand, she pressed into service copy of her passport, identity card of widows of Ex-servicemen and the Ration Card issued by Air Force Depot, Chandigarh which are exhibited as Ex. DW5/1 to Ex. DW5/3. According to the appellant, she was married to Air Cdt.. A.S. Nanua a Senior Air Force Officer who expired on 3.1.1992. After the retirement of her husband on 31.1.1991, the appellant shifted to Chandigarh on 1.2.1991 and has been residing there ever since. She stated her husband had purchased a plot in Mansarovar Garden scheme somewhere in 1969 in her name which was later sold somewhere in 1974-1975. However, due to the demise of her husband on 3.1.1992, the appellant had no details about the said property. I t is also stated in the written statement that the appellant on knowing about institution of the suit against her, based on forged, fabricated and manipulated documents, sent a demand notice dated 13.7.1996 to the respondent-Bank calling upon it to pay a sum of Rs. 25.0 lakh as damages. .The legal demand notice along with postal receipts are exhibited as Ex. DW5/7 to DW5/10. The appellant further pleaded though she had nothing to do with the alleged mortgaged property, however obtained a certified copy of the sale deed dated 25.7.1969 from the Office of Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate which was exhibited and filed in the pending suit which is marked as Ex. DW5/11. I t is alleged on a comparison of the photocopy of the sale deed placed by the respondent-Bank with the aforesaid certified copy, it is revealed that the sale deed filed by the respondent-Bank is a forged document.
(3.) THE DRT-1, Delhi while considering the objections raised by the appellant herein in the written statement, came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to place the original passport before the Presiding Officer to enable the Tribunal to ascertain the dates of her departure and arrival. THE Tribunal further came to the conclusion that the original title deeds of the property which are found with the respondent-Bank, could not have been available with the Bank unless that document is handed over by the appellant herself. THE Tribunal further observed that since the original sale deed of the property in question is with the respondent-Bank, it clearly establishes that the defendant No. 5 had mortgaged her property. THE Tribunal also observed that Ex. DW5/4 bears the signatures of the appellant in Hindi and as such the allegation that she does not know how to sign in Hindi is not accepted. THE Tribunal then observed that the evidence by way of affidavits filed by the officials of ;he Bank cannot be disbelieved as they are public servants and their statement has to be given more weightage than that of the defendants. THE Tribunal while recording these findings against the defendants, decreed the OA against this appellant also.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.