APHC010057302026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.3475 of 2026 Between: 1. MEKALA MALLEM KONDAIAH, S/O MEKALA KONDAIAH, AGE 44YRS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.3-19-A, ANANTHARAJU PURAM VILLAGE, BADVEL MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT- 516227. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, SASTRY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. MANAPPURAM HOME FINANCE LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE IV/470A(OLD) W/638A (NEW) MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPAD, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN-680567, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. 3. MANAPPURAM HOME FINANCE LIMITED, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER AT D.NO.42/221, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR UNION BANK OF INDIA, NGO COLONY, KADAPA PINCODE 516002. 4. MAJJARI SIVAIAH, S/O JAYARAMUDU, AGE: 35YRS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.81/2025, PALEMPALLI, KADAPA- 516003. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.3475 of 2026 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R SUDHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.3475 of 2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.3475 of 2026 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The 4th respondent is the owner of the immovable property, which he offered as a security for the loan availed by him from the 2nd respondent-financial institution. Thereafter, as he committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the 2nd respondent has initiated measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, „the SARFAESI Act‟) and proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are initiated to take possession of the secured asset from the 4th respondent. 3. The petitioner is a third party to the said loan transaction. According to the case pleaded by him, the 4th respondent has purchased the secured asset under a registered sale deed on 08.09.2016 and on the same day, he has executed a re-conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, without re-conveying the property in favour of the petitioner though the petitioner was willing to pay the balance amount, the 4th respondent has mortgaged the said property in favour of the 2nd respondent-financial institution and if the said property is now sold in the public auction for realization of the loan amount due from the 4th respondent, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has filed a suit in O.S.No.739 of 2024 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.3475 of 2026 Judge‟s Court, Kadapa, seeking execution of a registered sale deed by the 4th respondent in his favour in terms of the said re-conveyance deed, and the same is pending. 4. A copy of the said self-styled re-conveyance deed is made available at page No.64 of the material papers of the writ petition. It is titled as “Mutual Consent Agreement (MOU)”. It is not a registered document. Strictly speaking, it is not a re-conveyance deed and no right or title can be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of an unregistered document titled as “Mutual Consent Agreement (MOU)”, which the petitioner has chosen to describe as a re-conveyance deed. Therefore, when he has no title to the property, which he claims to have acquired prior to the mortgage of the said property by the 4th respondent, who is the original owner, in favour of the bank, the petitioner cannot seek to impeach the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-financial institution under the SARFAESI Act for realization of the loan amount by bringing the secured asset for sale. 5. Further, the right of the petitioner seeking execution of the registered sale deed by the 4th respondent on the basis of the said unregistered Mutual Consent Agreement is to be adjudicated in the civil suit that is pending before the civil Court and till the same is decided, the petitioner has no valid legal right in respect of the said property. Even if he has acquired any right under the said Mutual Consent Agreement, at best, his status is that of a prospective vendee and not the owner of the property, which is the secured asset. Therefore, he has no legal right to challenge the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner has to work out his remedy in the civil suit filed by him, which is pending adjudication before the civil Court concerned. 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.3475 of 2026 6. Therefore, we see absolutely no valid legal ground to interfere in the matter and to entertain this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY ______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 09.02.2026 IBL 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.3475 of 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.3475 of 2026 Dt: 09.02.2026 IBL