RBI Must Ensure Proper Title Scrutiny For Bank Loans, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has directed the RBI to make sure banks perform appropriate title searches before to loan issuance in an effort to curtail potentially hazardous lending practices. Officials who authorize loans without adequate title verification may face repercussions, the court has warned.

Case No: CA No. 1876 of 2016

Citation: Central Bank of India & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors., C.A. No. 1876/2016 

Bench: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

Facts Of The Case:

The property in question was acquired by the plaintiff’s father-in-law in 1967 and was transferred to the plaintiff’s late husband in 2005. Dispute arises from the fact that the property went to the plaintiff after her father-in-law died in 2005. She and her husband’s older brother Sumer Chand Jain, and his mother divided the riches, but there was no division of rights. Third parties were approached by Sumer Chand Jain to buy a portion of the bequest before approaching the co-owners. Parmeshwar Das Prajapati purchased one such item and secured it with the Central Bank of India. The bank has instituted legal proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) when Parmeshwar Das Prajapati stopped making mortgage repayments. The bank has attempted to get its money back under the measures envisaged by Section 13(4) of the Act.

To obtain a number of reliefs, including the return of the disputed property, the demolition of structures on the disputed land, damages and mesne profits for improper use of the property, and a declaration that the sale deed signed by Sumer Chand Jain and the subsequent mortgage deed were void, Smt. Prabha Jain filed Civil Suit No. 25A/2011. The Central Bank of India filed an application to have the plaint dismissed in accordance with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The application cited the plaintiff’s failure to pay the required court fees and the civil court’s lack of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. 

After the trial court dismissed the case, upholding the Central Bank’s arguments, Smt. Prabha Jain filed an appeal with the High Court. Since the DRT lacked the competence to settle questions pertaining to the legality of mortgages and sale documents, particularly when third-party rights were at play, the High Court reversed the trial court’s decision and determined that the civil court’s jurisdiction was unconstrained in this case.

Issue:

1. Whether the civil court’s jurisdiction is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act from determining the validity of a sale deed and mortgage that creates third-party rights.
2. Whether the sale deed executed by Sumer Chand Jain in favour of Parmeshwar Das Prajapati and the subsequent mortgage deed withthe  Central Bank of India are valid.

Arguments:

Petitioner (Central Bank of India):

• Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act expressly prohibits the civil courts’ jurisdiction from getting involved in any cases that the DRT or the Appellate Tribunal could decide. 
• Only the DRT may authorize the Central Bank’s actions under SARFAESI Act Section 13(4), including the enforcement of security interests. 
• The recovery procedure under the SARFAESI Act would be delayed as long as a civil suit was underway, which would contradict the Act’s primary goal of providing creditors with prompt remedy. 
• Since the lawsuit is related to the actions conducted under the SARFAESI Act, the civil court lacks the authority to consider it. 

Respondent (Smt. Prabha Jain):

• Since the sale deed and mortgage are title and ownership issues, the civil relief requested in the declaration of their invalidity is outside the purview of the DRT and the SARFAESI Act. 
• Third-party claims pertaining to title issues are exempt from Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which addresses the borrower’s ability to contest any action taken by the secured creditors. 
• DRT is unable to provide reliefs including demolition of buildings, return of possession, or a declaration of the nullity of sale deeds. Only a civil court can grant these reliefs.
• Since the Court Fees Act of 1870 primarily seeks declaratory relief, court fees were paid correctly.
• Civil court has inherent jurisdiction in this regard as it has the issue of third party’s rights determination in the case beyond the scope of debt recovery procedures.

Judgement:

1. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, stating that the primary goal of the SARFAESI Act is debt recovery and does not take into account addressing issues regarding the validity of sale deeds or mortgages. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act limits the DRT’s ability to investigate only the actions of secured creditors in compliance with Section 13(4). This indicates that the civil court’s jurisdiction is not waived when the relief sought is outside the scope of the SARFAESI Act, especially when it comes to third-party problems. This does not imply that the DRT has the power to resolve ownership issues, third-party rights, or title disputes, or to determine whether transactions between the parties are legitimate.
2. The Court clarified that Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act only limits civil court jurisdiction in cases when the DRT can provide adequate remedies. The DRT lacked the power to address the plaintiff’s complaints in this particular case.
3. The Supreme Court revived the plaintiff’s complaint, allowing her to pursue her claims in civil court. 

Impact Of The Judgement:

The distinction between the jurisdiction of the civil court and the scope of the SARFAESI Act is reiterated in this ruling. It makes the following clear: 

• Only DRT may handle debt recovery procedures; the SARFAESI Act is not a justification for avoiding civil courts when they are dealing with issues involving third-party rights and ownership. 
• Title disputes and requests for declaratory relief that fall outside the purview of the SARFAESI Act may be resolved in civil courts. 

Thus, the ruling protects borrowers’ and third parties’ access to remedies in the proper forums by providing much-needed clarification to the relationship between the SARFAESI Act and civil court jurisdiction. 

Conclusion:

By guaranteeing that justice is not constrained by the procedural requirements of debt collection laws, the ruling in Central Bank of India & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors. (C.A. No. 1876/2016) highlights the peaceful cohabitation of the SARFAESI Act with civil court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has made it clear that although the SARFAESI Act gives financial institutions a quicker way to collect debts, it does not cover disagreements about the validity of ownership, title, or third-party rights, which are better handled in civil courts.
This decision strikes a balance between the rights of individuals to seek remedies for complicated issues that fall beyond the purview of the SARFAESI Act and the interests of creditors seeking prompt debt collection. By affirming the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court has reinstated the civil court’s jurisdiction in matters where the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) lacks competence, especially in cases involving:

• Third-Party Rights and Ownership: Civil courts retain the authority to resolve issues concerning the validity of sale deeds, ownership disputes, and claims of third parties that the DRT cannot adjudicate.
• Declaratory Relief: Reliefs such as declaring sale deeds void, recovering possession, or demolishing unauthorized structures fall outside the SARFAESI framework and necessitate civil court intervention.

In addition to safeguarding individual rights, this ruling makes sure that financial organizations behave more responsibly. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has been instructed by the Supreme Court to enforce accountability among banks and stop careless lending practices by highlighting the necessity of thorough title inspection before to giving loans.

In the end, the ruling upholds a compassionate judicial philosophy that prioritizes justice over expediency. By guaranteeing that financial institutions cannot subvert basic property rights in the name of debt recovery, it promotes increased trust in the judiciary’s capacity to maintain justice and safeguard those who are most in need.

Read Judgement