- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13363 WP No. 32253 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 32253 OF 2017 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: M K RAVIKUMAR S/O M C KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT #2447/3 K-36/3, GROUND FLOOR HOSABANDIKERE 2ND CROSS K.R.MOHALLA MYSORE …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN B K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S ANDRA BANK HINKAL BRANCH #295, D BLOCK 3RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR MYSORE-570017 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13363 WP No. 32253 of 2017 2. M C KUMAR S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT #2447/3, K-36/3 GROUND FLOOR, HOSAANDIKERE 2ND CROSS K R MOHALLA MYSORE 3. M C RAMESH S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AT T SUBBANA SARVAJANIKA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL CHAMUNDHI HILLS MYSORE 4. M N UMESH S/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AS SYNDICATE BANK PERIYAPATNA TOWN MYSORE TALUK 5. TEJASWINI W/O M N UMESH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT 23, 2ND STAGE, 1ST MAIN, GAYATHRIPURAM NAZARBAD MOHALLA MYSORE-570015 6. M K SUNIL KUMAR S/O M C KUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT #2447/3 K-36/3, GROUND FLOOR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13363 WP No. 32253 of 2017 HOSABANDIKERE 2ND CROSS, K R MOHALLA MYSORE …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2, R4 TO R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.5.6.2017 ISSUED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: PRAYER a) Issue such appropriate writ and quash the Demand Notice 05.06.2017 issued by Respondent No.1 (Annexure - A) and b) Issue such other relief as may deem fit to the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13363 WP No. 32253 of 2017 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent is the father of the petitioner and sixth respondent, the third respondent is the brother of the second respondent, the fifth respondent is the daughter of the third respondent and the fourth respondent is the son-in-law of the third respondent. The sixth respondent is the first son of the second respondent and brother of the petitioner. The second respondent, along with the third respondent had jointly inherited the property bearing house No.2447, New No.K36, measuring East to West 18 feet and North to South 60 feet by Partition Deed dated 13.12.2013 and they were jointly in enjoyment of the same. The third respondent, taking advantage of the mild nature of the second respondent got a sale deed jointly executed in favour of his daughter and son-in-law i.e. the fourth and fifth respondents, who had registered the Sale Deed dated 22.04.2014. The fourth and fifth respondents in turn mortgaged the property in favour of the respondent/Bank and by way of the registered Mortgage Deed dated 29.04.2014 and availed loan for construction of the house. The petitioner accidentally came to know about the same during January 2016 and also about the notice that is issued under Section 13(2) of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13363 WP No. 32253 of 2017 the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act']. As such, he has come before this Court questioning the said 13(2) notice. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has already instituted the suit in O.S.125/2016 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore and the same is pending consideration. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit if the property is auctioned, it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioner, which has made him to come before this Court. Further, it is submitted that this is a case of fraud played by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank submits that the second and third respondents have executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of the fourth and fifth respondents in the year 2014 and immediately after that, they have approached the Bank and the Bank by mortgaging the property, has granted the housing loan. It is submitted that from the year 2016, the said suit is pending and until the rights - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13363 WP No. 32253 of 2017 of the parties are crystallized, the Bank cannot be stopped from continuing with the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that the petitioner has an effective remedy based on the further steps to be initiated by the Bank to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal [DRT] and he cannot come before this Court. Further, stay was granted in the year 2018 and from last 8 years, the Bank is not in a position to proceed with the matter and the suit is still pending. 5. Learned counsel for the first respondent/Bank relying on paragraph No.24 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish Singh Vs. Heeralal and Others1 and submits that the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach DRT and not before this Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. Petitioner has questioned the notice that is issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on the ground that the property is a joint family property and a suit is pending in O.S.125/2016 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore. A Co-ordinate Bench of 1 (2014) 1 SCC 479 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13363 WP No. 32253 of 2017 this Court on 09.01.2018 has passed an interim order observing that in the meanwhile, taking note of the contention putforth, respondent No. 1 shall not lift up the physical possession in respect of the portion in which the petitioner is in occupation until further orders are made herein. 7. According to the petitioner, the property is a joint family property and in that regard, he has filed a suit in the year 2016 and the said suit is pending since 8 years. The proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are stayed pursuant to the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and till date, the Bank being the secure creditor could not proceed with the SARFAESI proceedings. The assertion or the claim of the petitioner that it is a joint family property, that itself cannot be a ground for the Court to stall the proceedings. Admittedly, there is a sale deed in favour of the fourth and fifth respondents and they have availed the loan from the Bank. This Court has perused the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Jagdish Singh's case [referred to supra]. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13363 WP No. 32253 of 2017 8. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER [i] The petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the DRT basing on the subsequent proceedings that are going to be initiated under the SARFAESI Act. [ii] The petitioner shall have the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. [iii] All I.As in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE RB