[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Mst. Taja vs Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd. And Ors on 18 February, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
Serial No. 06
Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) No. 1832/2024
Dated: 18th of February, 2026.
Mst. Taja
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr Aswad Attar, Advocate.
''
V/s
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and Ors.
... Respondents
Through: -
Mr N. A. Dendru, Advocate; and
Mr Rizwan-ul-Zaman Bhat, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
(ORDER)
01. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court assailing the possession Notice dated July, 22, 2024 issued by the
respondent-Bank in terms of Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act").
02. Succinctly stated, the grievance of the petitioner is that she owns
half of the share in residential house falling under Survey No. 772 min, Khata
No. 282, Khewat No. 32, and Survey No. 1678/827, Khata No. 1106, Khewat
No. 222 of Mauza Zirpora, District Anantnag.
03. According to the petitioner, the proforma respondent No.3-
Mehraj ud din Paul, who is none other than her son, has availed loan facility
from the respondent-Bank and, as collateral security, mortgaged the
residential house in question, which was jointly owned by her along with her
son.
04. The case set up by the petitioner is that without her knowledge
and consent, the entire residential house and land appurtenant thereto have
been mortgaged to secure the loan by the proforma respondent No.3,
therefore, the action of the Bank in dispossessing her is illegal and, thus is
not sustainable in the eye of law.
05. However, at this stage, without going further into the factual
aspects of the matter and rival contentions of the parties, it is noteworthy that
petitioner herself placed on record an application which she admittedly has
moved before the Deputy Commissioner Anantnag for holding enquiry
regarding the possession notice and eviction from the residential house in
question on the ground that she is co-owner in possession of the residential
house falling under Survey No. 772 min. Petitioner asserted therein that she
did not mortgage her share to the Bank, rather she has gifted her share in the
property to daughters of Mehraj-ud-din Paul i.e. proforma respondent No. 3,
except one room which she has kept for her personal use. It is further stated
in the application that respondent-Bank has forcibly evicted her along with
her grand-daughters in pursuance of the possession Notice dated July 22,
2024, whereas her son Mehraj-ud-din Paul (borrower) is absconding.
06. Above all, the petitioner went onto submit in the same
application that her grand-daughters have already filed a Civil Suit before the
Principal District Judge, Anantnag against Mehraj-ud-din Paul, i.e. against
their father, and the trial court has passed status-quo order.
07. It is in the above background, we do not deem it proper to go
into the legality of the SARFAESI proceedings, because the petitioner is on
admission that she had gifted her share to her grand-daughters, who are none
other than the daughters of the Mehraj-ud-din Paul, the borrower. Therefore,
the entire mortgaged property is sought to be passed on inter-se the family
itself and the Civil Suit is also filed in respect of the same subject matter.
08. Therefore, ex-facie, the questions as to whether the residential
house in question is jointly owned by the petitioner and has been mortgaged
without her consent and knowledge; secondly, whether she had gifted her
share in favour of her grand-daughters are the question apparently fall within
realm of, "disputed questions of facts" which can be proved only by leading
evidence and, thus, cannot be determined in Writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution.
09. Nonetheless, as per the admission of the petitioner, already a
Civil Suit regarding the same subject matter is filed before the Court of
learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag, therefore, once appropriate
remedy is already availed, the petitioner cannot, on this count, also maintain
the Writ Petition.
10. When it is shown that a person has no interest in the mortgage
land, in that extent he cannot maintain a Writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to challenge the Bank's action against the mortgage
property because to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner must be an "aggrieved person" whose
legal or constitutional right is infringed or who has sufficient interest in the
matter. A complete stranger or person with no interest in the property i.e.
neither owner nor mortgagor nor guarantor nor any claimant whose rights are
directly affected cannot seek the Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus.
11. Indisputably , the petitioner has transferred her interest in the
mortgaged property in favour of her grand-daughters who have already
availed remedy by way of Civil Suit before the Civil court, therefore, the
instant petition is not maintainable, firstly; on the ground that the petitioner
cannot be said to be "aggrieved person" and secondly; the disputed
questions of facts are involved, therefore, Writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not maintainable.
12. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion the Writ petition
is dismissed along with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall
stand vacated.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
18th February, 2026
"Showkat Khan"
