JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order of the Delhi Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 6.1.2004 and the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 3.4.2003 (Annexure P-1) to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to implead the petitioner as one of the respondents in the appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. It appears that an OA was filed by the respondent No. 1/Oriental Bank of Commerce before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, against M/s. Ultra Pharma & Surgical Co., its proprietor Anil Kumar Bhatia and his wife Smt. Seema Bhatia for recovery of Rs. 12,65,738/- including interest up to 18.5.2002 and thereafter interest at 17% per annum. True copy of the that application is (Annexure P-3) to the writ petition.
4. The Bank had granted a cash credit facility to the defendant No. 1 in March, 2000, which was duly availed and enjoyed by the defendant No. 1. In pursuance of the terms of the sanction order, the defendant No. 2, Shri Anil Kumar Bhatia, deposited the original letter/documents pertaining to the immovable property, i.e., property No. 303, 3rd Floor at Plot No. 1, Local Shopping Centre, Vasundhra Plaza, Vasundhra Enclave, Delhi. The defendants also held themselves jointly and severally liable for payment of the loan amount in case the defendants failed to pay/return the loan in time.
5. The account of defendant No. 1 became a non-performing account on 30.9.2001 and a sum of Rs. 12,65,738/- with interest is due and outstanding against the defendants who were jointly and severally liable for the payment of the amount due.
6. During the pendency of the said OA, an impleadment application was filed by the petitioner, copy of which is `Annexure P-2′ to the writ petition. In that application, it was held that the petitioner had purchased the said property No. 303 at Plot No. 1, Local Shopping Centra, Vasundhra Plaza, Vasundhra Enclave, Delhi, by a Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell executed by Shri Anil Kumar Bhatia in favor of the petitioner and the petitioner was put in possession of the property. The petitioner alleged that that Shri Anil Kumar Bhatia had sold the property to him by executing the aforesaid documents. However, no registered Sale Deed in his favor was produced by the petitioner. It is alleged that subsequent to the purchase of the property by the petitioner, Shri Anil Kumar Bhatia mortgaged the said property to the respondent No. 1, Bank. The Debt Recovery Tribunal declined the request of the petitioner for impleadment and hence he filed a Miscellaneous Appeal No. 77/2003 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal which has been rejected by the impugned order.
7. In our opinion, there is no merit in this petition. The petitioner had only produced an Agreement to Sell, Will and a Power of Attorney and a receipt for payment of money but these, in our opinion, do not constitute a sale. Under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, sale of an immovable property can only be by a registered deed There is no registered Sale Deed which the petitioner has produced.
8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1,Bank, it is stated that the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the property in question. He has filed an impleadment application claiming rights in the property through documents which are fake and manipulated, and his aim is to defeat the claim of the respondent No. 1, Bank. The original documents relating to the property were deposited by respondents No. 2 to 4 with the Bank and these respondents have availed the loan facility granted by the Bank.
9. In paragraph 2.B. of the counter affidavit, it is stated that Shri Anil Kumar Bhatia has lodged a complaint with the Police that he has cancelled the alleged Power of Attorney and the petitioner has manipulated the documents and even the possession of the property is not with the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 had created a negative lien in respect of the property in question by depositing the original documents pertaining to the suit property with the Bank.
10. The petitioner has alleged that he has purchased the property for Rs. 2.90 lacs whereas the value of the property is about Rs. 15 lacs. Nobody in his senses will ever sell his property worth Rs. 15 lacs for Rs. 2.90 lacs. This itself shows that the petitioner has manipulated the documents. It is alleged that the petitioner is in collusion with the other respondents.
11. From the facts of the case, we find no merit in this petition. In our opinion, the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the property as he has not purchased it by any registered Sale Deed. An immovable property cannot be purchased by a mere Power of Attorney or Agreement to Sell. Moreover, the Power of Attorney is said to have been cancelled.
12. It seems that the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4 are in collusion in order to deprive the Bank of its dues. This is not a fit case for interference under our discretionary jurisdiction in Article 226 of the Constitution.
13. The petition is dismissed.