2026:JHHC:8253 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) No.1758 of 2026 ----- Sunita Devi, aged about 51 years, Wife of Late Kumar Rajendra Sahu, resident of Jharkhand Nagar, Near Shishu Gyan Mandir, Piska More, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand). … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The Authorized Officer, IDBI Bank Ltd., Regional Officer at 2nd floor, City Plaza, above Reliance Digital, Main Road, P.O. Main Road, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi. 2. Shri Ranjit Prasad Keshri, Son of Gauri Shankar Keshri, resident of Lahkoti, P.O. Hehal, P.S. -Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 3. Smt. Sulochna Keshri, Wife of Ranjit Prasad Keshri, resident of Lahkoti, P.O. Hehal, P.S. -Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Bank : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate …...... 02 /24.03.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 28.01.2026 passed in the Appeal Dy. No. 1063 of 2024 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad whereby and whereunder the Appeal preferred by the Bank against the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi has been allowed and has been held that so far as the shop bearing no. 1 measuring an area of 312.584 square feet situated in multistoried building known as ‘Dream Complex’ (hereinafter referred to as “the said property”) is concerned the Bank holds the first charge. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the DRAT has specifically given a finding that the title deed presented during creation of mortgage is forged and fabricated. When there is specific finding that the said deed is fabricated, the mortgage itself is invalid. Since the mortgage is invalid, the bank cannot recover any amount by selling the said 2026:JHHC:8253 2 property. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submits that admittedly there was mortgage of the property created by the borrower but admittedly the title was found to be forged but the fact remains that a charge has been created by the borrower by signing the documents in respect of the said property, thus, the Bank has the first charge over the property in question. 5. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the borrowers. They have taken loan from the IDBI Bank. While taking loan they have mortgaged one of their properties which is the subject matter of this case. As the respondent nos. 2 and 3 failed to liquidate their dues, the bank proceeded against them and possession of the said alleged mortgage property was taken. The petitioner herein who happens to be the purchaser of the said property of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, challenged the order of taking possession before the DRT, Ranchi. The DRT, Ranchi set-aside the possession and restored the possession to the petitioner. The bank thereafter challenged the said order of restoration of possession before DRAT, which reversed the order of DRT, Ranchi. 6. Admittedly the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had taken loan. They had mortgaged the property and submitted the deed of the property with the Bank. This deed was later on found to be forged. During the disbursement of the loan, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 signed various documents and agreements; one of such document is a document creating a charge of this particular property in favour of the Bank. 7. In the meantime, after the loan was disbursed, within two days, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 by fraudulent means executed a sale deed of this property in favour of this petitioner. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 thereafter also handed over possession of the property to the petitioner and handed over the original sale deed to the petitioner. The petitioner thus claiming ownership of the property in question having the sale deed in his possession, 2026:JHHC:8253 3 challenged the order whereby the possession was taken, on the ground that there is no legal mortgage. 8. After going through the records and after hearing the parties, I find that it is an admitted case of all the parties that the original sale deed was not deposited with the Bank while creating the mortgage. The DRAT also had arrived at a conclusion that the mortgage was created by virtue of fake document. 9. Even if for the sake of argument, if this Court accepts that there is no proper mortgage, the said fact also will not help the petitioner. In this context one has to take note of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act provides for creation of charge. For better understanding it is necessary to quote Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act: “100. Charge:- Where immoveable property of one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, the latter person is said to have a charge on the property; and all the provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to such charge. Nothing in this section applies to the charge of a trustee on the trust-property for expenses properly incurred in the execution of his trust, and, save as otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge.” 10. On perusal of the aforesaid provision of law it is clear that a charge is created by one person by his act or by operation of law. In this case, admittedly the respondent nos. 2 and 3 who are the borrowers had executed several documents creating charge over this property. Thus, by virtue of Section 100 and execution of various documents the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has created first charge in favour of the Bank over the property in question. This fact is admitted. 2026:JHHC:8253 4 11. Irrespective of creation of mortgage, a charge can be created in relation to a property. Creation of a charge in terms of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act is independent to any mortgage. It is not necessary that a charge has to be created only in respect of mortgaged property. Even if the property is not mortgaged a charge can be created over that property. 12. A charge is a broader concept which gives right over a property to a lender, whereas mortgage is a specific type of charge used as a security for loan. 13. In this case since the documents which created the charge in favour of the Bank is not disputed and cannot be said to be invalid, the Bank thus holds the first charge over said property. 14. Thus, I find that the order passed by the DRAT does not suffer from any illegality. No relief can be granted to this petitioner in the writ petition. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 24.03.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 AFR Uploaded on 26.03.2026