Manju Devi v. CANARA BANK

Date of order or nroceedinz

25.07.2025

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PATNA

Order with the Signature of the Court

SA 290 of 2023 ManjuDevi

Vs. CanaraBank

Ld. counsels for the parties are present. I have heard ld. counselsfor

the parties,

It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is

not the borrower in this case. He is the lesser of the property which has been

subsequently mortgaged to secure the loan taken by the lessee. The clause

in the lease deed was inserted fraudulently. For that the suit is pending

before Civil Court for cancellation of the lease deed. Ld. counsel for the

applicant further submits that the lease cannot be a subject matter of the

mortgage as the lease deed doesn't amount to the title deed. Hence, simply

depositing the lease deed will not amount to the equitable mortgage by

deposit of the title deeds.

The word Title Deed has not been defmed under the Transfer of

Property Act. It is intended to refer the documents creating rights of the

person who is executing on the date. So the lease deed in favor of the

mortgager which authorizes right to mortgage is a Title Deed for that

purposed. So far as the question with regards to the subject matter of the

mortgage the lease can be subject matter of mortgage in view of the section

6 of the Transfer of Property Act and more specifically it is not out of place

to mention here that every right in relation to or annexed with the movable

property is also immovable property itself. Hence, the immovable property

is subject matter of mortgage. Hence, there appears no infirmity at this

stage. So far as the question with regards to the fraudulent inclusion of the

clause authorizing the mortgage the property or rights of the lessee to secure

the loan is concerned, admittedly, for that the dispute is already pending

before the Civil Court which involves the intricate question of law and fact

and can be decided after the detailed evidence on the point. Hence, this

question is not being discussed in this case. At this stage, there appears no

infirmity prima-facie in the SARFAESI Action initiated by the respondent.

Accordingly, the present SA is dismissed.

Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website.

Office action taken with

date

Patna (Kaushalendra Yadav) Presiding Officer