Amit Kumar Saha & Anr. v. Canara Bank & Ors.
Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act does not bar a civil suit about the genuineness and validity of a title deed, because the Debts Recovery Tribunal cannot decide a substantive dispute on the validity of a deed of title that is foundational to ownership.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-10-15
A bank took possession under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act of a flat that the petitioners had bought by a registered conveyance in 2021 and in which they lived, on a mortgage created by another person. The bank questioned the petitioners' deed, saying an owner had died before it was executed. The Calcutta High Court held that the title dispute belonged in a civil court and protected the petitioners for two months.
What happened
The petitioners say they are the lawful owners and in possession of a flat at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata, bought from the developer and landowner under a conveyance registered on 4 December 2021. They produced mutation in the municipal records, property tax payments, a no-outstanding certificate and electricity bills. A possession notice was affixed on their door by the bank on 1 August 2026 (the writ challenged the notice of 1 October 2026). They learned that another person had created an equitable mortgage over the flat and defaulted, and that the bank had obtained an order under section 14 from the Additional CJM, Alipore, and taken physical possession. The bank said the authenticity of the deed relied on was in serious dispute because one of the owners had died before it was executed.
Questions before the court
- Can the High Court decide a dispute about the genuineness of the petitioners' title deed in a writ against a SARFAESI possession notice, or must it go to a civil court?
Why the court ruled this way
The Court noted that the deed, on its face, purported to confer title and that the tax receipts and bills prima facie showed the petitioners' possession, but once the foundation of the title was put in issue, whether the petitioners acquired a valid title would require adjudication of the genuineness, validity and legal effect of the instrument on evidence, which a writ court cannot do (paragraph 9). A suit is not barred by section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, which bars civil courts only on matters the Tribunal is empowered to decide, and the Tribunal cannot adjudicate a substantive dispute on the validity of a deed of title, as seen in Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain, (2025) 4 SCC 38 (paragraph 10).
Controlling point
The petitioners should be given liberty to institute a suit before the competent civil court, and the possession notice, given the peculiar facts, was to be set aside with possession restored for a limited period.
Order and next steps
The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a suit before the competent civil court. The possession notice of 1 October 2026 was set aside and the bank was directed to restore possession forthwith. The respondents were restrained from coercive steps for two months to allow the petitioners to approach the civil court for interim relief; if no suit was instituted and interim protection sought within that period, the protection would vacate automatically. The Court expressed no opinion on the validity of the conveyance or the mortgage, which were left open.
Practical implications
A flat-buyer found in the middle of a SARFAESI recovery against someone else's mortgage should gather the registered deed, tax receipts and utility bills, file a civil suit promptly, and seek interim relief within the protection the High Court allows.
Limits of this ruling
- The relief was granted on the peculiar facts and for a limited period; the Court did not decide the genuineness of the petitioners' deed or the validity of the mortgage, and the allegations in the petition were not deemed admitted since no affidavit was called for.
Law and judgment source
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, sections 14 and 34
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established.
Source checked: 2026-10-15 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 1–17 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.