Section 34 SARFAESI does not bar civil suits to determine disputed title deed validity.

The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of a residential flat under a registered deed of conveyance dated 4 December 2021, relying also on municipal records, tax receipts and electricity bills

Canara Bank disputed the deed’s authenticity and the petitioners’ title, alleging circumstances that raised a serious question about its genuineness

The Bank had taken SARFAESI measures in respect of the flat, relying on a mortgage purportedly created by the borrower, and obtained an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act

The petitioners challenged the Bank’s possession notice under Article 226.

The Court considered whether the title dispute could be resolved in writ proceedings and whether a civil suit was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act

1. Whether the petitioners’ claim of title, founded on a deed whose genuineness and validity the Bank seriously disputed, could be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226

2. Whether Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act barred the petitioners from bringing a civil suit to obtain an authoritative determination of the disputed deed and title

3. Whether the possession notice should be set aside and possession restored while the petitioners pursued relief before the competent Civil Court

Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act bars civil-court jurisdiction only in respect of matters that the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered under that Act to determine; it does not, merely because SARFAESI measures have been taken, bar a suit requiring adjudication of a substantive dispute over the genuineness or validity of a title deed

The Court relied on Central Bank of India & Anr. v. Prabha Jain & Ors., (2025) 4 SCC 38, in considering the limits of the statutory tribunal’s jurisdiction

Disputed questions of fact and title requiring assessment of evidence are ordinarily matters for the competent Civil Court, rather than determination in writ jurisdiction

The deed and supporting records prima facie indicated the petitioners’ title and possession, but the Bank’s challenge to the deed’s authenticity meant that the Court could not authoritatively determine whether the petitioners had acquired valid title without assessing evidence

That issue belonged before the competent Civil Court.

The Court nevertheless held that Section 34 did not, on these facts, preclude such a suit because the dispute concerned the genuineness and legal effect of the title deed, a matter outside the relevant statutory tribunal’s adjudicative remit

To preserve the position while the petitioners sought civil-court relief, the Court set aside the possession notice and directed restoration of possession, while granting only time-limited protection

The possession notice dated 1 October 2026 was set aside, and the Bank was directed to restore possession to the petitioners forthwith

The respondents were restrained from taking coercive steps for two months to allow the petitioners to file suit and seek interim relief; that protection would automatically lapse if they failed to do so within the period

The Court left the validity and legal effect of both the conveyance and mortgage, and the ultimate question of possession, open for determination by the Civil Court