- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43126 WP No. 27005 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 27005 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MR J AUGUSTINE S/O. LATE JACOB AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO. E-24 ANTHONY STORE NEAR MAMATHA TEMPLE SWATHANTHRANAGARA CHIKKABASAVANAPURA K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU 560 036 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. KAVITHA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S NIVARA HOME FINANCE LTD (INCORPORATED ON 02-12-2014 UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013) REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER 3RD FLOOR, BNR COMPLEX, 22 TO 24 OPPOSITE RBI LAYOUT, PUTTENAHALLI JP NAGAR 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU KARNATAKA 560 078 2. MRS. SAGAYA MARY D/O. MR. J. AUGUSTINE W/O. MR. THAMBI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 3. MR. THAMBI S/O. NOT KNOWN Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43126 WP No. 27005 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. MR. B. ANAND KUMAR S/O. NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.151, 1ST MAIN ROAD SWATHANTHRANAGARA CHIKKABASAVANAPURA K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU 560 036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.D.NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-A) SETTING ASIDE THE SECTION 14 ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED X A.C.J.M., BENGALURU IN CRL. MISC. NO.50716/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE -C BY STATING THAT THE ENTIRE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 COMPANY AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ARE ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43126 WP No. 27005 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari by setting aside the Section 14 Order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned X A.C.J.M., Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.50716/ 2023 vide ANNEXURE-C, by stating that the entire recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.1 Company against the Schedule Property are illegal and in violation of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct Respondent No.1 - Company to restore the possession of the Schedule Property to the petitioner as per the Order dated 25.07.2024 vide Annexure-D. c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to discharge the loan liability to Respondent No.1 - Company and thereby not to disturb the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of Schedule Property in the future. d) Issue such other orders or direction/s as may be deemed fit to grant, including cost of the case, in the view of facts and circumstances of this above case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The facts of the case as narrated by the petitioner are, petitioner is the absolute owner of the house property bearing Site No.4, Khatha No.24/P1/4 situated at - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43126 WP No. 27005 of 2025 Basavanapura Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, had executed a Gift deed in favour of the respondent No.2, who is none other than the daughter on 18.01.2021. The daughter i.e., respondent No.2 had mortgaged the property in favour of the respondent No.1/Finance Company on 09.02.2021 and availed the loan. As the respondent No.2 has failed to repay the loan, the respondent No.1/Finance Company has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed a case in No.MSC/CR/94/2021 before the Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens and Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to pay Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest to the respondent No.1/Finance Company and to cancel the Gift deed dated 18.01.2021 and other consequential reliefs. In the meantime, the respondent No.1/Finance Company had initiated proceedings and obtained an order from the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, on 20.09.2023, for taking - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43126 WP No. 27005 of 2025 physical possession of the schedule property. On 28.05.2025, an order was passed by the Tribunal under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. On 20.12.2024, a notice was sent to the Sub- Registrar Office, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, directing them to cancel the said Gift deed and to implement the order dated 25.07.2024. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to pay the entire outstanding amount and there shall be a direction to the respondent No.1/Finance Company to return the title documents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the property is mortgaged by the second respondent. Even if the amount is paid by the petitioner, they cannot return the documents to the petitioner and there cannot be any direction of such nature. It is submitted that in similar circumstances, the Bombay High Court in State Bank of India v. Manav Greys Exim Private Limited & Others1, where the Gift deeds were cancelled, the said order was set aside and in 1 Writ Petition No.9223 of 2024 dated 18.12.2024 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43126 WP No. 27005 of 2025 fact, costs were also imposed. Relying on this judgment, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that respondent No.1 has no such power to cancel the Gift deed and receive the money from the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Before the order was passed by the Tribunal, the registered Gift deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of the 2nd respondent on 18.01.2021 and later, the daughter/respondent No.2 had mortgaged the property in favour of the respondent No.1/Finance Company on 09.02.2021. It is also an admitted fact that the recovery proceedings were initiated by the Finance Company and an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was also passed on 28.05.2025. 7. The prayer that is sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is that she will pay the entire outstanding amount and the original title deeds have to be handed over to the petitioner. The prayer that is sought by the petitioner this Court cannot grant any relief. The petitioner has already initiated the proceedings before the Tribunal and if she is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43126 WP No. 27005 of 2025 entitled for any relief, she can seek the appropriate relief before the appropriate forum. 8. So far as this Court is concerned, considering the mortgage in favour of the secured creditor by the respondent No.2, this Court cannot direct the petitioner to pay the amount and there cannot be a direction to the respondent No.1 to hand over the title deeds. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative/appropriate remedy. i. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE Bss List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14