Raman Chopra vs Indian Bank & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3116 Del

$~28
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4268/2014


                                            Date of decision: 15th July, 2014
        RAMAN CHOPRA
                                                               ..... Petitioner
                          Through Mr. S.L. Gupta, Mr. J.P. Gupta & Mr.
                          Virendra Singh, Advocates.

                          versus

        INDIAN BANK & ORS.
                                                            ..... Respondents
                          Through Ms. Seema Gupta, Advocate for
                          respondent No. 1.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):

        We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 27 th

June, 2014. The facts of the case are glaring. The respondent bank had

filed recovery proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and

Financial Institutions Act, 1993 in the year 2000. They had prayed for a

decree of Rs.39,16,466.90 with pendante lite and future interest. Before

the tribunal the respondent bank had placed on record copy of the

guarantee deed executed by Arvind Chopra and Susheela Chopra, brother

and mother of the present petitioner. The loan was granted to Suman



W.P. (C) No. 4268/2014
 Chopra wife of Arvind Chopra, i.e., the sister-in-law of the present

petitioner. The aforesaid original proceedings were decreed on 16 th June,

2003. The judgment records that the respondent bank had placed and

proved on record joint and several confirmations of deposit of titled deeds,

which may be proved as Exhibit PW-1/10. Exhibit PW-1/10 has not been

filed along with the writ petition, but from the papers placed on record, it is

apparent that original title papers of property No. 339, Hakikat Nagar,

Delhi-9 were furnished to the bank, mortgaging the said property. The

respondent had produced one J.P. Solanki,AW-1, who was the Chief

Manager and had proved confirmation of equitable mortgage by Susheela

Chopra, which was marked, as noticed above, as AW-1/10. Susheela

Chopra at that time had also produced and furnished a registered Will of

her father Sampuran Singh, dated 2nd April, 1983. As per the said Will, the

property stood bequeathed to Susheela Chopra, widow of late Amrit Lal

Chopra. The petitioner, it is again noticed is the son of Susheela Chopra

and late Amrit Lal Chopra.

2.      It is obvious to us that the original Will was furnished and given to

the bank at the time of creating equitable mortgage for a specific reason; to

show that Susheela Chopra was the owner of the property. This is the

inference, which can be drawn. There was no other reason and ground for

furnishing the original title deeds and the registered Will.

3.      After the original proceedings were decreed on 16th June, 2003,


W.P. (C) No. 4268/2014
 Sampuran Singh, father of Susheela Chopra on 6th January, 2005 filed

objections before the recovery officer stating that he was alive and,

therefore, the Will dated 2nd April, 1983 was inconsequential as the bequest

would operate only upon his death. It is noticeable and apparent that

during the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal from 2000 till

6th January, 2005, Susheela Chopra, Arvind Chopra and Suman Chopra had

not taken the said plea or stated that Sampuran Singh was alive. It is also

noticeable and accepted that the original documents of the property were

furnished to the bank and filed with them along with execution of

confirmation documents relating to equitable mortgage.               The title

documents, it is reasonable to infer, were made available by Sampuran

Singh. Further, Sampuran Singh would have known that the original title

deeds were not with him. It is not pleaded or stated that the title deeds

were stolen or implaced.

4.      On 17th March, 2005, i.e., shortly after filing objections, Sampuran

Singh expired.           Thereafter, the present petitioner Raman Chopra filed

objections and claimed that Sampuran Singh had left behind a Will dated

30th December, 2004 in his favour and this being the last Will, would

override the earlier Will dated 2nd April, 1983.

5.      We have reproduced the aforesaid facts in some detail as we feel that

despite the legal submissions, the present case does not require interference

and exercise of our discretionary power under Articles 226 and 227 of the


W.P. (C) No. 4268/2014
 Constitution of India.   In the present case, the respondent bank, it is

apparent was made to understand that Sampuran Singh was no more and,

therefore, original title deeds of the property in favour of Sampuran Singh

was deposited by his daughter Susheela Chopra along with the registered

Will.     Letter of confirmation of mortgage was executed by Susheela

Chopra and Arvind Chopra. It is also apparent that the present stand and

stance taken by Raman Chopra and the purported Will of Sampuran Singh

dated 30th December, 2004 were executed after the decree was passed by

the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 16th June, 2003. Thus, the finding of the

Debt Recovery Tribunal that the aforesaid affairs appear to be a family

matter and collusion between the petitioner and the judgment debtors is

apparent and correct. In view the aforesaid factual position and noticing

the conduct and the facts on record, we do not think this is a case which

requires interference in exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed.



                                             SANJIV KHANNA, J.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. JULY 15, 2014 VKR/NA

W.P. (C) No. 4268/2014