- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45102 WP No. 2295 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 2295 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: DR. ASHWIN K., S/O K.C.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT 31, 1ST A MAIN, 1ST STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR MYSORE-570 017 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GAURAV G.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OFFICE AT ST. MARTHAS HOSPITAL 10/3/8, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, OPP. ST, NUNEGUNDALAPALLI, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU KARNATAKA- 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR 2. CANARA BANK REGIONAL OFFICE-1 NO. 26/A, GUEST HOUSE ROAD NAZARBAD MYSORE-570 010 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45102 WP No. 2295 of 2025 3. INDIAN BANK OFFICE AT PB. NO.5555, 254-260, AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 014 REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL DIRECTOR 4. SMT. VIJAYA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O LATE D.VASANTHA KUMAR R/AT NO.2674/3, NEW NO.D-22, ADI PAMPA ROAD, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 017 5. SMT. V.SUMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O LATE D. VASANTHA KUMAR, R/A NO.2674/3, NEW NO.D-22, ADI PAMPA ROAD, V.V. MOHALLA MYSORE-570 017 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O/D: 28/01/2025- NOTICE NOT NECESSARY FOR TIME BEING TO R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE LETTER DATED: 20.08.2019 (ANNEXURE-D). QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DATED:17.01.2025 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45102 WP No. 2295 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "PRAYER WHEREFORE, for the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass the following orders in the interest of justice and equity: a) To issue Order(s)/ Direction(s) to the Respondents to consider the letter dated 20.08.2019. (ANNEXURE - D); b) To issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Sale Notice dated 17.01.2025 (ANNEXURE - A) issued by the Respondent No.2; c) To issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Notice regarding Sale Notice bearing Ref No. MYS/RO/SALE NOTICE/11716/Q4/JAN/2024-25 issued by Respondent No. 2; (ANNEXURE-B); daled 17.01.2025; d) To issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Possession Notice bearing Ref No.MYS/REC/03/2024 dated 22.01.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE -C); e) To issue any other Writ or pass any other orders/ directions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity." 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the property by registered Sale Deed dated 17.03.2018 and he has been paying property tax on the schedule property. It is submitted that the other title documents concerning the property on which the apartment which consists the schedule property is available with the owner's association of the apartment and the petitioner is taking steps to procure a copy - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45102 WP No. 2295 of 2025 of the same. It is stated that the petitioner has created a charge on the schedule property by asserting his ownership rights by mortgaging the schedule property by executing a registered deed by depositing the Title Deeds dated 06.07.2023 for the purpose of availing loan in favour of respondent No.3/ Indian Bank. He has been paying the monthly instalments to respondent No.3. The petitioner has also inducted tenants by renting out the schedule property and the said tenant is currently residing in the schedule property. While this being so, a Possession Notice under the SARFAESI Act was affixed by the officials of respondent No.2/Canara Bank on 10.08.2019 on the schedule property. The petitioner has misplaced the copy of the Possession Notice which was affixed by the officials of the respondent No.2/Canara bank on 10.08.2019, as such, he could not produce the copy of the same before this Court. It is stated that upon seeing the Possession Notice dated 10.08.2019, the petitioner was surprised and shocked as the Encumbrance of the Schedule Property does not reflect any encumbrances created by respondent No.2/bank. Hence, the petitioner has addressed a letter dated 20.08.2019 to respondent No.1 and the concerned officials of respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45102 WP No. 2295 of 2025 No.2/bank informing them that there is no charge created by himself or his vendor. However, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not considered the letter dated 20.08.2019 till date. Upon receipt of the letter dated 20.08.2019, respondent No.2/Canara Bank had stopped their interference with the schedule property. Respondent No.2/Canara Bank has now issued Sale Notice dated 17.01.2025 and Notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act dated 17.01.2025 by affixing the same at the schedule property. The said notices have not been issued to the petitioner but it is issued to respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is stated that respondent No.2/Canara Bank is not a secured creditor and they are proceeding with the sale without any right, title or interest in any manner under law. It is stated that the petitioner had issued a letter dated 20.08.2019, so far they have not responded to the same. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. 3. Respondent No.2 has filed their objections. In the objections, it is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable when the statutory remedies under the RDB Act and SARFAESI Act are available to the petitioner. It is stated that as per - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45102 WP No. 2295 of 2025 Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, any person aggrieved by the measures taken by the bank shall approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is stated that when the petitioner is aware of the mortgage on 20.08.2019, he has approached the Indian Bank and created a fraudulent deposit of title deeds dated 06.07.2023. Respondent No.2/bank has granted loan to one Vijaya W/o Late Vasanth Kumar on 16.01.2018 by creating an equitable mortgage by executing Letter Evidencing Deposit of title deeds dated 17.01.2018 and said Vijaya has deposited the original partition deed dated 01.12.2017. It is stated that the property was owned by Late Vasanthkumar by way of registered sale deed executed by G.M. Surya Prakash and others on 15.04.2005 and the said Vasanthkumar died intestate on 19.02.2010 leaving behind his wife Smt.Vijaya and three children. 4. The legal heirs of Vasanthkumar entered into a joint development agreement with builder for construction of residential flats. Out of the flats allotted to Smt.Vijaya and her family, two apartments were sold and the sale consideration was received by the children as their share and subsequent to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45102 WP No. 2295 of 2025 that, a partition deed dated 01.12.2017 was entered upon in which Smt.Vijaya was allotted Flat No.F1 and her daughter was allotted Flat No.S2 and the property that is mortgaged to the bank is Flat No.F1. As per para 6 of the partition deed, it is clearly mentioned that Smt.Vijaya will retain the original documents with her and on the basis of the said assertion, the said partition deed in original was deposited with the bank. It is stated that the petitioner without even looking at the original partition deed could not have purchased the said flat on 17.03.2018 and he is not a bonafide purchaser. The loan account of Smt.Vijaya turned NPA in the year 2019, hence, the bank had initiated recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act, demand notice and possession notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) respectively were issued. The possession notice was also affixed on the schedule premises in the year 2019 itself. The petitioner has not approached any Court of law till date to protect his alleged rights. It is stated that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition and the writ petition has to be dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45102 WP No. 2295 of 2025 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when this matter came up before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it was observed that when the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property, whether the bank can proceed with the sale is a question that has to be decided by this Court. It is further submitted that way back in the year 2019, when he had addressed a letter to the bank raising all these issues, the bank had failed to reply to the same. Further, in the year 2024, notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the bank. It is submitted that whether the bank is a secured creditor where the title deeds are mortgaged to the bank or whether the bank can proceed with the property, all these issues have to be decided by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and in fact, the property is mortgaged to respondent No.3/bank. 6. Learned counsel appearing of respondent No.2/bank submits that there are several disputed questions of facts that are involved in this case and that apart, when there is a Tribunal constituted, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45102 WP No. 2295 of 2025 that in fact, the bank is a secured creditor as the original partition deed is with the bank and the petitioner without verifying all these documents had purchased the property and he cannot be termed as a bonafide purchaser and the bank being the secured creditor is entitled to proceed as per the SARFAESI Act. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the property as he has purchased the same from the borrower of the bank. According to the bank, the borrower had mortgaged the original partition deed and the petitioner ought not to have purchased the property without verifying the title deeds. Both the parties are raising disputes with regard to the title of the property. All these issues cannot be decided by this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy for adjudication of all the disputes that are raised before this Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. As far as the Sale Notice is concerned, the submission - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45102 WP No. 2295 of 2025 of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sale could not take place and that relief no more survives for consideration. The other relief that is sought is questioning the Notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner can avail the alternative remedy before the appropriate forum. This Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for adjudication of all the disputes that are raised before this Court in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ii. The respondent No.2/bank shall not take any coercive steps for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG/List No.: 5 Sl No.: 11