TMT S RAMAMANI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
LAWS(DR)-2005-6-2
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 14,2005

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.Gnanaprakasam, - (1.) THE respondent Bank filed an application in IA No. 436/2001 to implead the appellant herein in TA-256/2001, and the same was allowed by the DRT-II, Chennai, by its order dated 14.12.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the proposed party preferred this appeal.
(2.) Facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows. The 1st respondent's husband in the TA before the DRT-II, namely, late V.C. Soundarapandian, was an employee of the respondent Bank herein. During the course of his employment, it is stated, that he had committed several misdeeds and also misappropriated the Bank's amount for which the respondent Bank had instituted a suit in OS-307/1992 before the Sub-Court, Tuticorin, and the same has been now transferred and pending in TA-256/2001 before the DRT-II at Chennai. That apart, the deceased V.C. Soundarapandian availed loan for which he had created mortgage by deposit of title deeds and as he had committed default in discharging the mortgage, the respondent Bank filed the Suit in OS-332/1994, before the Civil Court, Tuticorin, and when the suit was pending, he died and his LRs were brought on record. S. Vasuki and others who are the defendants in the suit submitted to the decree by filing a Memo on 15.12.1999 and based on the Memo, a decree was passed on 16.12.1999 and they have also deposited the entire decretal amount and, therefore, the decree was fully satisfied. As the respondent Bank subsequently came to know of the sale in favour of the appellant, they have taken out an application in IA-436/ 2001, to implead the present appellant as a party to TA-256/2001, and the same was allowed by the DRT-II, Chennai, and the same is under challenge before this Tribunal. Heard the learned Advocate for appellant and the respondent.
(3.) THE learned Advocate for the appellant would contend that she had purchased the property on 9.8.1999, which was the subject matter of the Suit in OS No. 332/1994, and respondent's claim in that suit was fully discharged, on the date of purchase there was no order of injunction restraining the vendors from selling he property and the appellant was also not aware of the other suit filed by the respondent Bank in OS-307/1992, which is now pending before the DRT-II, as TA-256/2001, and, therefore, she is a bona fide purchaser of the property for a valuable consideration without notice of the pendency of the claim made by the respondent Bank. It is also further submitted that the respondent Bank cannot exercise the general lien in respect of the title deeds of the immovable property as the title deeds are not 'goods' as defined under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In any event, the appellant is not liable to answer any of the claims of the respondent Bank and, therefore, she is an unnecessary party to the proceedings, taken by the respondent Bank, against her vendors.;


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