A party cannot pursue parallel civil and RDB Act proceedings for the same relief.

The plaintiff, S. Selvi, claimed to have purchased the suit property on 29 December 2006.

She alleged that the fourth defendant had used forged title documents to create a mortgage in favour of Indian Bank and sought declarations that the mortgage and the subsequent sale certificate were invalid or not binding on her, together with a permanent injunction.

The fifth defendant, the auction purchaser, applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, arguing that the suit was barred by Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDB Act”), and that the plaintiff was pursuing the same grievance under that Act.

The trial court dismissed the application, reasoning that the forgery allegations could be decided by a civil court.

The fifth defendant challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court recorded that the plaintiff had also challenged the auction before the DRT and DRAT and that related civil revision petitions were pending before the High Court.

The judgment records the mortgage date as 20 September 2022, although it also recounts earlier events; this appears to be a chronology inconsistency in the text.

1. Whether the civil suit was barred under Section 18 of the RDB Act where the plaintiff was pursuing the same grievance through proceedings under that Act.

2. Whether the plaint could be rejected when the plaintiff had acquired the property after the deemed attachment and the transferor had not challenged the mortgage or the auction sale.

Section 18 of the RDB Act was applied as barring the civil suit in the circumstances found by the Court, where the plaintiff was pursuing the same relief through the statutory debt-recovery process.

The Court also relied on Section 28(3)(x) of the RDB Act, which it described as creating a deemed attachment when a person fails to pay after notice; it held that the deemed attachment took effect from the demand notice dated 12 September 2006.

The Court applied the principle that a subsequent purchaser cannot claim a better right or title than the transferor, particularly where the transferor had not challenged the mortgage or the ensuing auction sale.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC provided the procedural basis for the application to reject the plaint.

The Court found that the plaintiff’s challenge to the auction and sale certificate under the RDB Act raised the same grounds as the civil suit, and that the related proceedings remained pending before the High Court.

It held that the plaintiff could not pursue the same grievance in parallel forums.

Further, the demand notice preceded the plaintiff’s purchase, and the resulting deemed attachment therefore applied before the transfer.

Since the fourth defendant had not challenged the mortgage or the auction sale, the plaintiff, as a subsequent purchaser, could not assert a superior right to challenge them.

Although the judgment refers to the parties’ competing positions on whether photocopies of title deeds could create a valid equitable mortgage, it expressly left the merits of the plaintiff’s grounds open for determination in the pending revision proceedings.

It made no finding on the merits of the plaintiff’s grounds in the pending civil revision petitions and ordered no costs.