LexCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. versus SMT. PRABHA JAIN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 263 : 2025 INSC 95 Central Bank of India & Anr. v. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1876 of 2016) 09 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the jurisdiction of civil court to try a suit is completely barred by s.34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Headnotes† Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002-SARFAESI Act – ss.34, 17, 13(4) – Jurisdiction of the civil court to try a suit – Plaintiff-wife inherited 1/3rd share of the suit land on the death of her husband, however husband’s elder brother without any partition amongst the heirs divided the land and sold them illegally to different persons – One such buyer mortgaged the plot with the appellant-Bank for obtaining loan, and thereafter defaulted in payment – Bank took possession of the plot under the SARFAESI Act – Plaintiff then filed a suit in the civil court seeking declaration that the sale deed executed by husband’s brother as illegal; the mortgage deed executed in favour of the Bank as illegal; and sought possession of the plot – Application u/Ord.VII r.11 CPC by the Bank that the plaint be rejected as suit is barred u/s.34, and the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the same – Civil court rejected the plaint – However, the High Court holding that the civil court’s jurisdiction to decide the suit not ousted by s.34, and the Debt Recovery Tribunal-DRT had no jurisdiction to decide whether persons other than the mortgager had title in the mortgaged property, set aside the judgment and restored the suit – Correctness: Held: First and second reliefs not in relation to any measures taken by the secured creditor u/s.13(4) – They are reliefs in relation to the actions taken prior to the secured creditor stepping into the picture and well prior to the secured creditor invoking 264 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports the provisions of the SARFAESI Act – Tribunal would have no jurisdiction u/s.17 to grant the declarations sought in the first and second reliefs – SARFAESI Act has not been enacted for providing a mechanism for adjudicating upon the validity of documents or to determine questions of title finally – Jurisdiction to declare sale deed or mortgage deed being illegal, vested with the civil court u/s. 9 CPC – Civil Court has jurisdiction to finally adjudicate upon the first two reliefs – As regards the relief of possession, plaintiff could not have sought the relief from DRT – Plaintiff neither a borrower nor a person claiming under/through the borrower – Plaintiff has a claim independent of and adverse to the borrower – Plaintiff was not in possession, thus, the question of DRT “restoring” possession to plaintiff did not arise – DRT would have no jurisdiction to grant such relief to her, thus, the plaintiff’s third relief in the suit also not barred by s.34 – Even under the expression appearing at the end of s.13(3), the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of being handed over possession – Even the amended s.13(3) confers no power to hand over the property to someone who was never in possession – Plaint must survive because there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint u/Ord. VII r. 11 – Hence, even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected u/Ord. VII r. 11 – First and second reliefs regarding illegality of the execution of sale deed and mortgage deed clearly not barred by s. 34 and within the civil court’s jurisdiction, thus, plaint cannot be rejected u/Ord. VII r. 11 – Furthermore, if civil court cannot reject a plaint partially, then by the same logic, it ought not to make any adverse observations against the other relief – Thus, no error of law committed by the High Court in passing the impugned order – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.VII r.11. [Paras 16-18, 23-25, 45] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.VII r.11 – Partial rejection of plaint under O.VII, r.11 – Effect: Held: Even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected u/ Ord.VII, r.11 – Plaint must survive because there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint u/Ord. VII, r.11 – Thus, the plaint cannot be rejected u/Ord.VII, r.11 – If the civil court is of the view that one relief is not barred by law but is of the view that the other relief is barred by law, the civil court must not make an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.