Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

R.A. (SA) No. 149 of 2014. Case: P. Thiruvengadam Vs Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. and Ors.. Chennai DRAT DRAT Cases

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberR.A. (SA) No. 149 of 2014
Party NameP. Thiruvengadam Vs Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: P. Sreenivasulu, Advocate and For Respondents: B.F.S. Legal, Advocate
JudgesDr. K.G. Shankar, J. (Chairperson)
IssueSecuritisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 17, 34
CitationIII (2015) BC 157
Judgement DateApril 22, 2015
CourtChennai DRAT DRAT Cases

Judgment:

Dr. K.G. Shankar, J. (Chairperson)

  1. This Appeal is by the Applicant in SA-20/2014 on the file of the DRT-II, Chennai. SA-30/2014 was laid under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act. for short) to quash the entire SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Authorised Officer of the Asset Reconstruction Company [India] Ltd. (ARCIL, in short] which is the Respondent No. I therein. Through the impugned proceedings SA-30/2014 was dismissed without costs. Hence, the Appeal.

  2. The property in dispute consists 4800 sq. ft. in extent. The brother-in-law of the Appellant by name V. Jayarama Mudaliar alleged to have purchased 2400 sq. ft. in year 1966. The Appellant in turn purchased 2400 sq. ft. on 16th July, 1969. The brother-in-law of the appellant released the property purchased by him in favour of the appellant through a registered Release Deed on 25th May, 1981. The property bears No. 18/5 in an extent Ac. 0.74 cents. The Revenue Department subsequently reallocated the Survey No. 18/5C to the property purchased by V. Jayarama Mudaliar and Survey No. 18/5D to the property purchased by the appellant. It is the contention of Mr. P. Sreenivasulu, learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant made construction in the premises and also has been paying the property tax.

  3. While so, in 1995, on Mr. P. Senthur Pandian, Advocate, issued a notice to the appellant claiming that the appellant was a trespasser on the property which was purchased by L. Abinesh Babu (R2). The appellant issued reply to the notice through a registered notice dated 4th September, 1995.

  4. The respondent No. 2 (L. Abinesh Babu), allegedly purchased the property from Sriramalu Reddiar in 1991. Be it noted that Sriramalu Reddiar was the vendor of the Appellant and his brother-in-law. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Sriramalu Reddiar was not alive by year 1991 at which time the respondent No. 2 allegedly purchased the property. That apart, when Sriramalu Reddiar sold away the property in year 1966 and 1969 to V. Jayarama Mudaliar and the appellant herein, Sriramulu Reddiar had no title in the property to sell the same to the respondent No. 2. When the respondent-No. 1 issued notice about the alleged mortgage by the respondent No. 2, the appellant issued a reply on 30th June, 1997 claiming title to the property. The respondent No. 1 sought...

To continue reading

Request your trial