Rule 58 of order21
S. Fernandes
(Querist) 22 September 2013
This query is : Resolved
Sir,
In execution proceedings I have attached a property of JD. Another person has intervined by filing application under rule 58 of order 21, stating that prior to court attachment, property was mortgaged to Punjaab National Bank and this bank has sold it under the securitization act, and therefore has exclusive title over the property. Accordingly courts attachment has to be withdrawn.
He has enclose in support of his application
the sale deed. But the sale deed shows that seller is the JD and purchaser is this person, there is no mention of PNB anywhere in that document.
My question is could this sale be by PNB to purchaser under securitization act? How can we distinguish between sale under securitization act and private sale??
thanks,
S. Ferdandes.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 22 September 2013
Purchaser paid to PNB or JD?? is the Ans.
S. Fernandes
(Querist) 22 September 2013
purchaser paid by RTGS transfer Drawn on the name of the JD into account of JD with PNB, amount due and paid is 10% of property value.
Also there is no certificate of sale issued by PNB to purchaser.
Sale deed is between JD and Purchase, PNB does not feature in the deed.
Can I hold this is a private sale, where Purchaser has paid the due of JD to bank so as to distance put iut of my reach the balance 90% ???
Advocate Ravinder
(Expert) 24 September 2013
Under Securitisation Act, the PNB will get absolute rights to sell the property. The PNB might have sold the property on behalf of the mortgagor to the purchaser.
Please clarify me that whether the sale deed is registered and to whom the purchaser paid the money.
S. Fernandes
(Querist) 24 September 2013
Sale deed is between JD and Purchase, PNB does not feature in the deed. sale deed is registered.
purchaser paid by RTGS transfer Drawn on the name of the JD into account of JD with PNB, amount due and paid is 10% of property value.
Thanks
Advocate Ravinder
(Expert) 25 September 2013
The burden of proof lies on the person intervened and filed application. Let him prove what he stated in his petition. As per his own application, the facts are totally contradictory. The petition says that the sch. property was mortgaged to PNB, whereas the sale deed shows the vendor as JD and purchaser is third party and nowhere the PNB name is mentioned.
If he cannot prove, his petition will be dismissed.
Advocate Ravinder
(Expert) 25 September 2013
The burden of proof lies on the person intervened and filed application. Let him prove what he stated in his petition. As per his own application, the facts are totally contradictory. The petition says that the sch. property was mortgaged to PNB, whereas the sale deed shows the vendor as JD and purchaser is third party and nowhere the PNB name is mentioned.
If he cannot prove, his petition will be dismissed.
