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

The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of a residential flat under a deed of conveyance and relied on municipal and electricity records as evidence of their title and occupation

Canara Bank had initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act against the flat, asserting that borrower Rishita Nandi had mortgaged it, and had obtained an order under Section 14 to take possession

The Bank disputed the genuineness and validity of the petitioners’ conveyance deed, including on the ground that an owner had died before its execution

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

Whether the disputed genuineness and legal effect of the petitioners’ conveyance deed could be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226, or required determination by a Civil Court

Whether Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act barred the petitioners from instituting a civil suit to determine the validity or genuineness of the deed of title

Whether the possession notice should be set aside and possession restored pending the petitioners’ pursuit of civil remedies

Article 226 provides extraordinary writ jurisdiction, but disputes involving contested title and the genuineness or legal effect of a deed may require evidentiary adjudication by a competent Civil Court rather than determination in writ proceedings

Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act excludes civil jurisdiction only over matters that the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered under the Act to determine; it does not bar a civil suit seeking adjudication of a substantive dispute over the validity or genuineness of a title deed where that issue is foundational to ownership

The Court relied on *Central Bank of India & Anr. v. Prabha Jain & Ors.*, (2025) 4 SCC 38, in considering the scope of that bar

The Court found that the deed and supporting records prima facie indicated the petitioners’ claim and possession, but the Bank’s challenge placed the deed’s authenticity and the petitioners’ title in serious dispute

Resolving that dispute would require assessment of evidence and was therefore for the competent Civil Court, not the writ court

The Court held that Section 34 did not prevent such a suit because the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction did not extend to determining the foundational dispute over the deed’s genuineness and legal effect

Despite leaving title and mortgage validity open for civil determination, the Court set aside the possession notice and ordered restoration of possession, while granting the Bank temporary protection against coercive steps

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

The respondents were restrained from taking coercive steps concerning the property for two months, during which the petitioners were required to file suit and seek interim relief; otherwise, the protection would automatically lapse

The Court expressed no opinion on the validity of either the conveyance or mortgage, or on who should ultimately retain possession