1 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4628/2010. Bhanwar Lal. vs. S.B.B.J. and others. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4629/2010. Vaga Ram. vs. S.B.B.J. and others. 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4630/2010. Ganesh. vs. S.B.B.J. and others. Date : 12.5.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.IR Choudhary, for the petitioners. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. All these writ petitions are decided by this common order in view of the same plea taken by all the three petitioners in these writ petitions. The facts of SBCWP No.4628/2010 will be sufficient guidance for other cases for deciding the legal issue. The petitioner is aggrieved against the auction notice dated 6.4.2010 issued by the S.B.B.J. for sale of the property of Kanti Lal. The petitioner states that he purchased the property in dispute by registered sale deed, copy of which is placed on record as Annex.1. It is submitted that the respondent Bank can proceed with the sale of the land which has not been sold 2 to the petitioner for recovery of loan amount of the bank but the petitioner since is a bonafide purchaser of the part of the property, his property cannot be auctioned. It is submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge of taking of loan by his vendor from the Bank. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case as well as the documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's predecessor took loan from the bank and mortgaged the property in dispute and the petitioner purchased the property in the year 2007 which is admittedly after mortgaging the property with the bank. The petitioner's contention is that he had no knowledge when said Kanti Lal took loan nor any notice was given to the petitioner about any demand against said Kanti Lal or about any charge over the property of the bank. All the above issues are absolutely irrelevant in views of the fact that it is the buyer's duty to find out the title or defect in title or charge or encumbrance on the property in dispute. The mortgagee's right are not affected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that first the property of said Kanti Lal may be 3 auctioned and thereafter, the bank may proceed to auction the petitioner's land. There is no legal foundation for the said plea and the right of the mortgagee cannot be destroyed by such type of order. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. Consequently, these three writ petitions are hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya