THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.No. 4271 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 03.09.2010 in C.F.No. 3984 of 2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar rejecting the plaint, as barred by law, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. The petitioner filed the suit in C.F.No.3984 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar seeking partition and separate possession of 1/4th share of the suit schedule property and to declare that the registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.12078 of 2005 dated 21.10.2005 as null and void and not binding on the petitioner-plaintiff. The office of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar returned the said suit raising an objection as to the maintainability. Subsequently, stating that the suit is maintainable, the plaint was represented before the court and ultimately by order dated 03.09.2010, the court below rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Respondents are the defendants. First respondent is the father, respondents 2 and 3 are the brothers of the petitioner-plaintiff and fourth respondent is a Bank, which mortgaged the property in question. The petitioner is the joint owner of house bearing No.3-1-220 (new) situated at christian colony of Karimnagar proper which is the suit schedule property. The grand father of the petitioner by name T. Israil purchased the property from church of south India for a valid consideration. Subsequently, the grand father of the petitioner obtained construction permission from Karimnagar Municipality and constructed a tiled house in it. The Karimnagar Municipality has also assigned door No. 3-1-79/B in the name of her grandfather and he has also paid tax to the Municipality till 01.09.1980. After the death of her grand father, the property devolved on the legal heirs viz., T. Prakasham who is the father of the petitioner and T. Immanuel, Junior paternal uncle of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 27.07.1991 issued by the Karimnagar Municipality. They also paid property tax. Father of the petitioner and her junior paternal uncle mutually partitioned the joint property through a notarized agreement. The tiled house bearing No. 3-1-220 having plinth area of 1075 square feet is a joint family property and respondents 1 to 3 and the petitioner are entitled to equal share of 1/4th of the property. While so, the first respondent executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of respondent No.2 to the extent of entire joint family property with the consent of respondent No.3 and without the knowledge of the petitioner. Consequently, the second respondent mortgaged the property with respondent No.4 and obtained loan. Later, since the second respondent failed to discharge the loan, the fourth respondent issued proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (for short “the Act”) for recovery of the loan amount. She also submits that though she requested respondent No.1 several times to allot the property to the extent of her share, but he did not do so. It is stated that on 05.07.2010 the petitioner came to know that the fourth respondent has attached the suit schedule property. On 10.07.2010, the petitioner approached respondent Nos 1 to 3 and questioned about the same, then they disclosed that the said joint family property is attached by respondent No.4. Respondent No.1 also narrated that a registered gift settlement deed was executed by him in favour of respondent No.2 to the extent of entire joint family property and respondent No.3 has also given consent to the same. It is further stated that respondents 1 to 3 suppressed the real fact that the property is joint family property and that the petitioner is also entitled for 1/4th share and unless the property is partitioned with meets and bounds between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3, the first respondent cannot execute any document in favour of respondent No.2. Section 2 ( c ) of the Act defines “bank” which reads as under: 2(c ) “bank” means- i) a banking company; or ii) a correspondent new bank; or iii) the State Bank of India; or iv) a subsidiary bank; or v) such other bank which the Central Government may, by notification, specify for the purposes of this Act. Section 2 (f) of the Act defines “borrower” which reads as under: 2(f) “borrower” means any person who has been granted financial assistance by any bank or financial institution or who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assistance granted by any bank or financial institution and includes a person who becomes borrower of a securitisation company or reconstruction company consequent upon acquisition by it of any rights or interest of any bank or financial institution in relation to such financial assistance; Section 2 (j) of the Act defines “default” which reads as under: 2(j) “default” means non-payment of any principal debt or interest thereon or any other amount payable by a borrower to any secured creditor consequent upon which the account of such borrower is classified as non-performing asset in the books of account of the secured creditor. Section 2 (t) of the Act defines “property” which reads as under: 2(t) “property” means- i) immovable property; ii) movable property; iii) any debt or any right to receive payment of money, whether secured or unsecured. iv) receivables, whether existing or future; v) intangible assets, being know-how, patent, copyright, trade mark, licence, franchise or any other business or commercial right of similar nature. Section 13 of the Act deals with Enforcement of security interest. Section 13(4) of the Act is extracted hereunder: In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely:- a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realizing the secured asset. b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realizing the secured asset: Provided that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt. Provided further that where the management of whole of the business or part of the business is severable the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security for the debt; c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets, the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor; d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. Section 17(1) provides for right to appeal 1) Any person (including borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under this chapter, (may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed) to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. In this case respondent No.2 obtained loan by mortgaging the joint family property after execution of a registered gift settlement deed in his favour by his father. Thereafter, he became a defaulter. Therefore, fourth respondent-bank issued proceedings under the Act. Pursuant thereto the fourth respondent-bank attached the property. At that juncture, the petitioner claiming that she is the sister of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed the suit claiming partition of the suit schedule property which is only a residential house. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the alleged gift settlement deed is not binding on the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view section 34 of the Act and therefore, it cannot entertain the suit. In that view of the matter, the court below has rightly rejected the plaint and the order passed by the court below does not suffer from any legal infirmity in returning the plaint. However, it is open for the petitioner to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. G. CHANDRAIAH,J Dated:21.12.2010 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.No. 4271 of 2010 Dt. 21.12.2010