Bank of Baroda v. Rukunuddin G Sheikh & Ors.

Bank of Baroda

…Appellant

…Respondent

Case No: Appeal No. 172/2014

Date of Judgement: 06/10/2023

Judges:

Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

Download Court Copy  CLICK HERE

Facts:

Arguments by the Parties:

The measurements of the mortgaged property were wrongly described in the Recovery Certificate, which came to their notice only when the auction purchaser attempted to encroach upon their property. The co-owners had earlier sold 3042 sq. yards by registered sale deed to Maharana Pratap Centre Owners Association, leaving each co-owner an undivided share of 507 sq. yards. The entire extent of land mortgaged, measuring 636.50 sq. m, is not owned by the original Certified Debtors (Respondents No. 2 to 4). Only an extent of 244 sq. m, along with the construction standing thereon, belonged to the Mortgagors. The auction purchaser was finding it difficult to identify the exact location of the purchased property, and the receiver appointed by the Recovery Officer and a private agency hired by the bank could not succeed in identifying the property. The private agency reported that the mortgagor owns only 244.36 sq. m of land. Unless the modification concerning the measurement of the mortgaged property is made, the Recovery Officer cannot implement the order.

Arguments by the Bank (Appellant):

Arguments by the Auction Purchaser (Appellant in Appeal No. 172/2014):

Section 26(2) of the RDB Act provides for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes only, and there is no such mistake in the Recovery Certificate that needs to be corrected. The property was attached in August 2003, and the sale in favor of the Applicants in the M.A. is consequent to the attachment, so they cannot maintain the M.A. under Section 19(25) of the RDB Act.

Cases Cited:

Sections and Laws Referred: