R - 26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.452/1995
Date of decision: 04th December, 2008
%
State Bank of India ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Virender Singh, Adv.
versus
Sat Prakash Sharma & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through : None.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral)
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the denial of prayers B,C&D.
2. We note that the amount claimed by the bank i.e. the appellant, in sum of Rs.1,98,147.75 has been held to be the entitlement of the appellant. Prayer for a primary decree to be passed in terms of Order 34 as also a direction that the hypothecated vehicle be recovered and sold has been declined by the learned Trial Judge by noting that PW-1 has not deposed anything qua said prayers and that relief pertaining thereto could be sought by taking out execution.
3. We disagree with the reasoning of the learned Trial Judge for the simple reason, PW-1, the branch manager of the appellant, RFANo.452/1995 Page 1 of 2 deposed to the deposit of the original title deeds by way of an equitable mortgage pertaining to 10 Biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.77/20, Village Rithala, Delhi. He also deposed that the vehicle in respect whereof the loan was availed was hypothecated with the bank; being Vehicle No.DBP-1544.
4. We accordingly allow the appeal and modify the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.08.1994. We hold that the appellant has successfully established that 10 Biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.77/20, Village Rithala, Delhi was the subject matter of an equitable mortgage to secure the repayment of the loan. The suit pertaining to the prayer B is decreed by directing that, if within 6 months from today, the judgment debtors do not pay the decretal amount, it shall be open to the appellant to seek sale of the mortgage property.
5. Pertaining to the hypothecation of the bus in question, we are doubtful whether the bus would be on road.
6. Be that as it may, we pass a decree directing the defendant to hand over the possession of the hypothecated bus to the appellant with a direction that the appellant would sell the bus after intimating the decree holders the highest bidder available with the appellant.
7. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J J.R. MIDHA, J DECEMBER 04, 2008 aj RFANo.452/1995 Page 2 of 2