Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Hemal Harshad Doshi And Anr vs Punjab National Bank , P M Rd Branch, Fort ... on 4 November, 2019

Author: Bharati Dangre

Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, Bharati Dangre

                                                              (6) WP 13446-18.doc

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Amk
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 13446 OF 2018

      Hemal Harshad Doshi & Anr.                           .. Petitioners
           Vs.
      Punjab National Bank & Ors.                          .. Respondents


      Mr. Ali Patel i/b Mr. Jamshed Ansari for the Petitioners.
      Ms. Sarita Nangare i/b Law Foucus for Respondent No.1.

                                CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. &
                                        SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATE : 4th NOVEMBER, 2019.

P. C. :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The facts are interesting. Row House No. 28/7, Powai Chowk, Mulund Colony, Mumbai is the subject matter of the dispute. As per 1 st Respondent-Bank, Respondent No.4 mortaged the same to it on 18.04.2011. As per the Writ Petitioners, they purchased the row-house in question from Respondent Nos.2 and 3 under a Deed of Conveyance dated 29.11.2007 which could not be registered on account of issue whether the plot of land on which the row-house was constructed was private forest land. The matter reached the highest Court and in the year 2013 the Sub-Registrar started accepting the conveyance deeds for being registered.
3. There is no clarity as to who was the original builder of the row-

house but it appears from the pleadings that Respondent No.4 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2019 23:23:48 ::: (6) WP 13446-18.doc purchased the row-house and so did the Writ Petitioners. Be that as it may, we need not to decide the said issue of title.

4. The Petitioners are in possession of the row-house in question pursuant to unregistered Conveyance Deed dated 29.12.2007 and thus as per the Explanation (II) to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the bank would be deemed to have noticed of the possessory title of the Petitioners who would also be entitled to the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

5. The Petitioners are aggrieved by an order obtained by the bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act which has been passed without notice to the Petitioners.

6. Since the Petitioners do not have a registered Conveyance Deed in their favour, they would at best be entitled to the benefit of Section 53- B of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with a deemed notice to the bank of their possessory title.

7. Thus, the sale of the property by the bank would be subject to the rights of the Petitioners.

8. So declaring, we dispose of the Petition.

[SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]                            [CHIEF JUSTICE]




                                                                                          2/2



     ::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2019                ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2019 23:23:48 :::