THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 15687 OF 2011 DATE: September, 2011 Between: Manda Venkata Sai Savitri Manikyamba and another … Petitioners And: The State Bank of India and 2 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 15687 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in auctioning the schedule property as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the rules and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to stay all proceedings of auction of the petition schedule property. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of House No.3- 2, 3-3 admeasuring 466.48 sq.yards in Sy.No.475/1 situated in Kapu Street, Kaikaluru, Krishna District; and they purchased the said property from Tadinada Vijaya Gopal, S/o Tadinada Raja Gopal Rao under registered sale deed vide Document No.2137/94 dated 23.08.1994 and since then they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property as lawful owners. They further pleaded that during their absence from station, the respondent-Bank officials entered into the petition schedule property and seized the same in the month of March, 2011; and on their enquiry, they came to know that the suit schedule property was pledged by someone with the bank, and when they are trying to settle the matter with the bank authorities, they have seen the Auction Notice on 04.05.2011 in Eenadu District Edition for auction of the suit schedule property. They again approached the bank management, but their plea to settle down the issue of the schedule property was not considered. Therefore, they filed the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court passed interim orders on 09.06.2011 in W.P.M.P. No.18796 of 2011, to proceed with the auction, but the sale shall not be confirmed. Thereafter, the respondents have filed their counter and also filed W.V.M.P. No.2042 of 2011 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 09.06.2011 in W.P.M.P. No.18796 of 2011. The respondents, in their counter, pleaded that the petitioners have an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and as such the present writ petition is not maintainable. According to the respondents, the petitioners were the owners of the property in question and they sold away the said property to Smt. Euddamsetti Ramana, w/o, E. Durga Rao under registered sale deed vide Document Nos.1499/2008 dated 22.07.2008 and 1500/2008 dated 22.07.2008; and the purchaser of the schedule property had mortgaged the property with their Bank for sanction of loan in the name of her husband E. Durga Rao and one E. Satyanarayana. Thus, the petitioners have no title, interest or right over the property in question. According to them, the 3rd respondent-Bank of Chinapandraka Branch sanctioned a loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs each to E. Durga Rao and also to E. Satyanarayana on 12.09.2008 and 15.09.2008, respectively. As security for the due payment of loan amount sanctioned to the said borrowers, the wife of E. Durga Rao, i.e., Euddamsetti Ramana, mortgaged the property in question by depositing the original title deeds with the bank. The said property was sold by the bank as per the Auction Notice on 10.06.2011 for a sum of Rs.90,50,000/-. However, the sale was not confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser in view of the interim order dated 09.06.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.18796 of 2011, and they further pleaded that if there is any dispute between the petitioners and their purchasers, they can resolve the same before appropriate forum and not by filing the writ petition, and hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petitioners’ counsel pleaded that the petitioners are the owners of the petition schedule property, having purchased the same from Tadinada Vijaya Gopal, s/o Tadinada Raja Gopal Rao under registered sale deed vide Document No.2137/94 dated 23.08.1994 and, in their absence, the respondent-Bank has taken possession of the property and on enquiry, they came to know that someone has pledged the property with the bank. The counsel for the respondent-Bank has pleaded that the petitioners have sold away the property in favour of Smt. Euddamsetti Ramana, w/o E. Durga Rao, under sale deeds dated 22.07.2008, and the said Euddamsetti Ramana has mortgaged the property as security for the loan sanctioned in favour of her husband E. Durga Rao and one E. Satyanarayana. The respondents filed Xerox copies of the sale deeds dated 22.07.2008. As per the said sale deeds, it can be seen that the petitioners have executed two separate registered sale deeds in favour of Smt. Euddamsetti Ramana, w/o E. Durga Rao, and in the said sale deed, it was mentioned that the property was purchased by them from Tadinada Vijaya Gopal, s/o Tadinada Raja Gopal Rao; and they sold the said property to clear off their family debts. Therefore, as on the date of mortgaging the property in favour of the respondent-Bank, the petitioners are not the owners of the said property. The property was sold by them in favour of Smt. Euddamsetti Ramana, w/o E. Durga Rao, who in turn mortgaged the said property as security for the loan sanctioned in favour of her husband E. Durga Rao and one E. Satyanarayana. As the said borrowers failed to repay the loan amount, the said property was auctioned by the respondent-Bank. In spite of the counter filed by the respondents with the above said allegations, the petitioners have not filed any reply rebutting the allegations made against them. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners have no title or interest or right over the schedule property as on the date of its auction. As such they cannot question the action of the respondents in auctioning the petition schedule property. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed without costs. _________________________ JUSTICE N. V. RAMANA _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Date: September, 2011 KSM