I ■« APHC010279312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14072 OF 2025 Between: Taalala Naga Venkata Dhana Lakshmi, W/o. Veera Raghavulu, aged about 46 Yrs, Hindu, House wife, R/o H.No. 10-34-4/1, Maruthi Swamy temple Street, Bhagya Lakshmi Peta, Tadepalligudem-534101, West Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd, rep. by its Managing Director, 1®* Floor, Dare House, 2-NSC Bose Road, Chennai- 600001. 2. The Authorized Officer, M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Floor, Shanthi Plaza, Gayatri Nagar, Near St Co. Ltd., # 59-14-24, 1 Benz Circle, Vijayawada-520010. 3. Kamisetty Suneetha, W/o Kamisetty Gopala Krishna, aged about 43 Yrs., Hindu, House wife, R/o H.no. 1-2-24, BrahmanandareddyMarke t, Tadepalligudem-534101. 4. B. Balaji, Advocate-Commissioner, C/o Bar Association, District Court Complex, Eluru-534001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1, 2 & 4 in proclaiming to take forcible possession of the petitioner's property ie., RCC building G+1 bearing D.No.10-34-1/1 and Assessment No. 1080023756 situated in an extent of 307 sq. yards in 19th ward within Tadepalligudem Municipality and Sub-registrar, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District under the guise of order Dt. 10-04-2025 in CrI.MP No.205/2025 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru ignoring the civil suit vide in OS No.36/2024 filed by the petitioner on the file of Senior Civil Judge Tadepalligudem against the respondent No.1 and 3 and further ignoring the orders of interim injunction in lA No.646/2024 Dt.02-08-2024 against the respondents 1 and 3 etc., in respect of the petitioner's property as illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent and his men not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned property either under the orders in CrI.MP No.205/2025 Dt. 10-04-2025 or under CrI.MP No.129/2022 Dt.10-12-2022 and grant such other just relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction, directing the 3^^ respondent and his men interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property RCC building G+1 bearing D.No.10-34-1/1 and Assessment No. 1080023756 situated in an extent of 307 sq. yards in 19*^ ward within Tadepalligudem Municipality and Sub-registrar, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District either not to le.. under the orders in CrI.MP No.205/2025 Dt, 10-04-2025 or under CrI.MP No. 129/2022 Dt. 10-12-2022 and grant such other just relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: The Authorized Officer, M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Floor, Shanthi Plaza, Gayatri Nagar, Near Benz St Ltd., # 59-14-24, 1 Circle, Vijayawada-520010. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2 AND Taalala Naga Venkata Dhana Lakshmi, W/o. Veera Raghavulu, aged about 46 Yrs, Hindu, House wife, R/o H.No. 10-34-4/1, Maruthi Swamy temple Street, Bhagya Lakshmi Peta, Tadepalligudem-534101, West Godavari District. 1. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd, rep. by its Managing Director, 1®* Floor, Dare House, 2-NSC Bose Road, Chennai- 600001. Kamisetty Suneetha, W/o Kamisetty Gopala Krishna, aged about 43 Yrs., Hindu, Housewife, R/o H.no. 1-2-24, BrahmanandareddyMarket , Tadepalligudem-534101. B. Balaji, Advocate-Commissioner, C/o Bar Association, District Court Complex, Eluru-534001. 2. 3. 4. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29.05.2025 passed in W.P No. 14072 of 2025, and to dismiss the main W.P. No. 14072 of 2025. b Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2; SRI JAWAJI SARATH CHANDRA ■f Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4:— The Court made the following order: APHC010279312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT PETITION NO: 14072/2025 Between: 1.TAALALA NAGA VENKATA DHANA LAKSHMI, W/O VEERA RAGHAVULU AGED ABOUT 46 YRS. HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, R/0 H.NO. 10-34-4/1, MARUTHI SWAMY TEMPLE STREET, BHAGYA LAKSHMI PETA, TADEPALLIGUDEM-534101. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 1ST FLOOR, DARE HOUSE, 2- NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600001. 2.THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO.LTD. 59-14-24, 1ST FLOOR, SHANTHI PLAZA, GAYATRI NAGAR, NEAR BENZ CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA-520010. 3.KAMISETTY SUNEETHA, W/O KAMISETTY GOPALA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 43 YRS. HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, R/0 H.NO. 1-2-24, BRAHMANANDAREDDYMARKET, TADEPALLIGUDEM-534101. 4.B BALAJI, ADVOCATE-COMMISSIONER C/0 BAR ASSOCIATION, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, ELURU-534001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1, 2 and 4 in proclaiming to take forcible possession of the petitioner's property i.e., RCC building G plus 1 bearing D.No. 10-34-1/1 and Assessment No. 1080023756 situated in an extent of 307 sq. yards in 19th ward within Tadepalligudem Municipality and Sub-registrar, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District under :h:cj ei (Rcj 'W.(p.^o.l4072 of2025 IJ ■ 2 the guise of order Dt. 10-04-2025 in CrI.MP No.205/2025 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Civil Judge {Senior Division), Eluru ignoring the civil suit vide in OS No.36/2024 filed by the petitioner on the file of Senior Civil Judge Tadepalligudem against the respondent No.1 and 3 and further ignoring the orders of interim injunction in lA No.646/2024 Dt.02-08-2024 against the respondents 1 and 3 etc., in respect of the petitioner’s property as illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent and his men not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned property either under the orders in CrI.MP No.205/2025 Dt.10-04- under CrI.MP No.129/2022 Dt.10-12- 2022 and grant such other just 2025 or relief or reliefs lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant interim direction, directing the 3rd respondent and his men interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property Assessment No. 19th ward within not to ie., RCC building G+1 bearing D.No.10-34-1/1 and 1080023756 situated in an extent of 307 sq. yards in Tadepalligudem Municipality and Sub-registrar, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District either under the orders in CrI.MP No.205/2025 Dt,10-04- 2025 or under CrI.MP No.129/2022 Dt. 10-12-2022 and grant lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29.05.2025 passed in W.P No. 14072 of 2025, and to dismiss the main W.P. No. 14072 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.JAWAJI SARATH CHANDRA V3.<P.33o.l407Z of2025 CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SIN^ THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ; 01.07.2025 DATE ORDEE (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Action Of respondent nos.1,2 & 4 in proclaiming to take forcible possession of per property under guise of order dated 10.04.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.205 of 2025 or Cri.M.P.No. 129 of 2022 passed by the learned Division), Eluru, in utter I.A.No.646 of under order dated 10.12.2022 in Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Civil Judge (Senior dated 02.08.2024 passed in Civil Judge (Senior Division), of interim injunction orders 2024 by the learned ignorance 2024 in O.S.No.36 of Tadepalligudem, has been questioned in this writ petition. that the petitioner entered into an 2. The contents of the petition, in brief, are .. nf sale dated 29.10.2014 with respondent no.3 agreeing to unregistered agreement of sale oaie failure of respondent no.3 to subject property and consequent to purchase the execute registered sale deed, she filed suit in .2020. That she filed E.P.No.20 of in O.S.N0.66 of 2020 and the same was 2020 for execution of sale deed favour and later she filed decreed on 29.09 and the Court executed a registered sale deed in her ion of the subject property. E.A.No.6 of 2024 and obtained possession the writ petition that later the petitioner, having learnt proceedings against respondent no.3 in vide S.A.No.282 of Tribunal and as respondent no.l despite pendency It is further stated in that respondent no.l initiated SARFAESI respect of the subject property, filed Securitization Application 2022 before the Debts Recovery .W(P.y/o. 14072 of2025 'V v^A" ■ V / 1- -V ^'7 Ah • 4 {■J of the said Securitization Application attempted to auction the property, the petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.33990 of 2022 before this Court and the same is pending adjudication. That the mortgage loan is not genuine and a false 7 r r i r mortgage was created by husband of respondent no.3 with active collusion and connivance of respondent nos.l & 4. That the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.36 of 2024 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem for declaration that the alleged mortgage deed dated 08.05.2019 executed by respondent no.3 and her husband in favour of respondent no.l is not binding on her and for consequential permanent injunction. That the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem granted interim injunction vide orders dated 02.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.646 of 2024 in O.S.No.36 of 2024. That the subsequent enquiries made by petitioner revealed that suppressing the factum of interim orders of injunction, the respondent no.l moved a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.205 of 2025 under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Eluru and obtained orders dated 10.04.2025 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for taking possession of the subject property. That the mortgage was brought into existence only with a view to defeat the legitimate rights of the petitioner over the subject property. That the respondents are making hectic efforts to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property in contravention of the interim injunction orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Pappu Srinivasa /^o, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri JawajiSarath Chandra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ^CJ ei ‘RCJ .W<P.!Nb.l4d72of2025 4. Sri Pappu Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the mortgage over the subject property is collusive and the same was created only with a view to defeat the rights of the petitioner got over the subject property under specific performance decree.. He would further contend that the petitioner purchased the subject property under agreement of sale way back in the year 2014 i.e. much prior to creation of collusive mortgage over the property and therefore, the mortgage created over the subject property does not bind the petitioner. He would further contend that despite the interim injunction orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem dated 02.08.2024, the respondent nos.l and 2, suppressing grant of interim orders and by playing fraud on the Court, filed Crl.M.P.No.205 of 2025 under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act and obtained orders appointing an Advocate Commissioner for taking over physical possession of the subject property. He would further contend that in view of the interim injunction orders, the respondent nos. 1,2 & 4 cannot take possession of the subject property. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition directing respondents not to interfere with the subject property. / 5. Sri Jawaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for respondent nos.l & 2, would contend that agreement of sale, the suit proceedings and so also the proceedings initiated by the petitioner against respondent no.3 are all collusive and they are invented only with a view to get over the mortgage created by respondent no.3 in favour of respondent no.l and also to screen away the subject property from SARFAESI proceedings. He would further contend that the interim execution '.W(p.!Ko. 14072 of2025 injunction orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem are hit by section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and therefore, the said orders would not deter the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Eluru from entertaining the petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act or the Advocate Commissioner from taking over physical possession of the property. He would further contend that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner claims to have purchased the subject property from respondent no.3 under an agreement to sell dated 29.10.2014 and consequent to failure of respondent no.3 in executing registered sale deed in terms of the said agreement to sell, she filed suit vide O.S.No.66 of 2020 and the same was decreed and in execution petition filed for execution of the said decree, the court executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and later she was put in possession of the property. 8. As could be seen from the petition filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the respondent no.3 mortgaged the subject property in favour of respondent no.l by execution of a letter evidencing deposit of title deeds on 08.05.2019. 9. Therefore, creation of mortgage over the subject property is much prior to the suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of agreement ‘.W(B.’Ko. 14072 of2025 1 to sell. Moreover, the agreement to sell is unregistered. A registered mortgage deed generally takes precedence over an unregistered sale agreement, even if the sale agreement is older. This is because a registered mortgage deed is Considered legally superior in establishing property rights and priorities. While an unregistered sale agreement might be admissible as evidence for certain purposes, like proving the existence of a contract in a specific performance suit, it does not, on its own, grant ownership or create a valid mortgage. 10. In view of the above, the rights of the petitioner over the subject property accrued under the registered sale deed are subject to the mortgage created by respondent no.3 in favour of respondent no.l in respect of the subject property. 11. Regarding the binding nature of the orders dated 02.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.646 of 2024 in O.S.No.36 of 2024 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem; section 34 of the SARFAESI Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of the matters which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine. For expediency the same is extracted hereunder: "34. Civil court not to have jurisdiction.—No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other yfC3 ^ ‘RC3 .W(PMo.l4Q7Z of2025 8 authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993)." 12. Upon perusal, section 34 of the Act not only ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the matters which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered, but also prohibits them from passing any orders of injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of powers conferred by or under SARFAESI Act. 13. In the instant case, the specific case of the petitioner is that in view of the interim injunction orders dated 02.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.646 of 2024 in O.S.No.36 of 2024 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, the respondent nos. 1,2 & 4 cannot take physical possession the subject property. 14. In the plaint as well as in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.646 of 2024, the initiation of SARFAESI proceedings by respondent no.l was clearly mentioned. Therefore, in view of the bar contained in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem ought not to have passed orders of injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. Therefore, the interim orders of injunction passed in I.A.No.646 of 2024 would not in any way be an impediment for carrying out the actions under SARFAESI Act. •.W(p.^o. 14072 of2025 9 15. Apart from the above, the contents of the petition would indicate that the petitioner had already filed Securitization Application vide S.A.No.282 of /> / / 2022 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the same is pending adjudication. In view of the same, since the petitioner had already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, she can purpose her remedies in the pending Securitization Application. 16. In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merits and the same deserves dismissal. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR j //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Pappu, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies. ssb 1 HIGH COURT DATED:01/07/2025 ORDER WP No.14072 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS