THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.No. 26340 of 2011 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The petitioner has questioned the possession notices dated 20.04.2011 and 18.07.2011, issued by respondent No.1-State Bank of Hyderabad, whereby the bank has taken possession of the petitioner’s Flat No.305/A, Lakeview Residency, Gaddiannaram village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the flat in question. He does not owe any amounts to respondent No.1-Bank. Therefore, it is not proper for respondent No.1-Bank to take possession of the flat in question for recovery of the dues payable by respondent No.2. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. No doubt, the petitioner does not owe any amounts to respondent No.1-Bank, the fact remains, respondent No.2, who happens to be the vendor of the petitioner, had taken loan from respondent No.1-Bank by mortgaging the flat in question. Respondent No.2 having taken the loan amount and having mortgaged the flat in question, did not repay the loan amount and instead sold the flat in question to the petitioner. As respondent No.2 did not repay the loan amount, respondent No.1-Bank issued notices to respondent No.2 as also the petitioner and after following the procedure prescribed under the SARFAESI Act, for recovery of the loan amount, issued the impugned notices, and took possession of the flat in question, which respondent No.2 had mortgaged for the loan he had taken from respondent No.1 for its purchase. As respondent No.2, being the loanee, failed to repay the loan amount, no exception can be taken to the action of respondent No.1-Bank in taking over possession of the mortgaged property towards discharge of the loan amount, and such action of respondent No.1, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be illegal or arbitrary. May be the petitioner bona fide purchased the flat in question from respondent No.2, but he having purchased the same without verifying whether the same is encumbered or not, had done so at his own risk. The petitioner not being a party to the loan transaction, and he having not mortgaged the property, cannot contend that the mortgagee is not entitled to take possession of the flat in question for realization of its loan amount from the loanee, who had mortgaged the same towards security for the loan amount. Since respondent No.2 knowing fully well that he had mortgaged the flat in question and yet sold the same to the petitioner, the remedy available to the petitioner is to proceed against respondent No.2 in accordance with law, but certainly he cannot have any grievance against the impugned action of respondent No.1. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 31st October, 2011 KSR