IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 12693 of 2006 Between: Smt. S. Lalitha, W/o. Sri Srinivasulu, R/o. H.No. 16-4-1107, Shivanagar, Warangal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authorised Officer, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office (Rural), 6-3-653, Pioneer House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 Pola Madhav @ Ajay, S/o. Laxman Rao, R/o. H.No. 9-10-145, Pinnavarai Street, Warangal. 3 Pola Laxman Rao, S/o. Sri Somanna, R/o. H.No. 9-10-145, Pinnavarai Street, Warangal. 4 Pola Someshwar, S/o. Laxman Rao, R/o. H.No. 16-4-853, Shivajinagar, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action ofthe 1st Respondent in issuing the possession notice dated 16-5-2006 published in Andhrajyothi Daily Newspaper on 18-5-2006 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the objective and provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Rule -3 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and also under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and propper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.BHUVAN SUNDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No. 12693 of 2006 ORDER: (Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the possession notice dated 16.5.2006 published in Andhra Jyothi Daily Newspaper on 18.5.2006 as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) and Rule-3 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and also under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 2. 3rd respondent is the borrower and the 1st respondent had issued a demand notice dated 1.3.2006 calling upon the borrower to repay the loan amount within a period of 60 days in terms of Section 13 (2) of the Act and as the borrower failed to repay the loan amount, the 1st respondent passed an order under Section 13 (4) of the Act and took possession of the property mortgaged by the 3rd respondent. This writ petition is filed by the daughter of the 3rd respondent-borrower claiming that the property mortgaged with the 1st respondent by the 3rd respondent is a joint family property and that she has a share in the said property. Since the father of the petitioner has mortgaged the property for securing a loan, and spent the same towards the benefit of his children, the children cannot disown the liability of their father so as to see that the proceedings under the Act are not proceeded with. In the partition suit said to have been filed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent-bank was not made party. In the circumstances, this writ petition is not maintainable. However, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps by filing an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, if so advised. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt. 21.7.2009 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}