Mona v. Canara Bank and Anr.

1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by an order passed by the Recovery Officer with regard to taking over possession through a Receiver and sale of property bearing Plot No.83, Block No.7-B, Basti Rehnagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It is the case ofthe petitioner that some times in the year 2016, she came to know about the sale of the subject property and, therefore, immediately thereafter filed objection before the Recovery Officer. It is the case ofthe petitioner that the said property was allotted to one Sh.Hira Lai vide lease deed dated 10^*" April, 1974 by the DDA. Sh.Hira Lai transferred W.P. (C)No.13172/2018 Page[1] of[3] \ I 2018:DHC:9076-DB /,/ the right,title and possession ofthe subject property in favour ofMrs.Kinno Devi and Mrs.Bimla Devi vide sale deed dated 12^^ September,1986. Kinno Devi passed away intestate leaving behind legal heirs which included the petitioner,her sisters and brothers. It is stated thatKinno Devi did notleave behind any Will and, therefore, the entire property was to be divided amongstthe6legal heirs in equal shares and the petitioner would be entitled to 1/6^'^ share ofthe property in question. However,it is stated that in the year 2003 one ofthe brothers,SunilPawar executed the relinquishment deed in favour ofrespondent No.2, Daler Singh Panwar, another brother ofthe petitioner,thereby relinquishing his 1/6'^ share ofthe property in the name of respondent No.2. However, it is stated that in the said relinquishment deed, both Sunil Pawar and Daler Singh Panwar claimed themselves to be the sole legal heirs and did not disclose the name ofthe other persons, like the petitioner who had shares in the property. Based on the relinquishment deed, it is said that respondent No.2 mortgaged the property with the Bank and took loan. The bank initiated the proceedings for recovery in January, 2009 and, thereafter the recovery proceedings were initiated and the petitioner raised objections before the Recovery Officer which having been dismissed,appeal wasfiled which has also been dismissed and therefore this petition.

2. The Courts below has considered the aforesaid and the findings recorded concurrently by the Recovery Officer and the Tribunal are that the petitioner knew about the act of their brothers and it is only to help the brothers and for preventing them from repaying the amount taken, the device has been adopted for delaying the proceedings. The appeal filed by W.P.(C)No.13172/2018 ' Page2of[3] the DRAT also have been dismissed.

3. In view ofthe factthatthe action has been taken based on the findings offact as is recorded hereinabove in accordance with law, concurrently by all the Authorities and Tribunal, we see no reason to make any indulgence intothe matter. ^

4. The appeal,therefore,stands dismissed.

IK CHIEF JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO,J DECEMBER 05,2018 'anb' W.P.