RANCHI, India, April 24 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on March 24:

1. Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. The petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 28.01.2026 passed in the Appeal Dy. No. 1063 of 2024 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad whereby and whereunder the Appeal preferred by the Bank against the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi has been allowed and has been held that so far as the shop bearing no. 1 measuring an area of 312.584 square feet situated in multistoried building known as 'Dream Complex' (hereinafter referred to as "the said property") is concerned the Bank holds the first charge.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the DRAT has specifically given a finding that the title deed presented during creation of mortgage is forged and fabricated. When there is specific finding that the said deed is fabricated, the mortgage itself is invalid. Since the mortgage is invalid, the bank cannot recover any amount by selling the said property.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submits that admittedly there was mortgage of the property created by the borrower but admittedly the title was found to be forged but the fact remains that a charge has been created by the borrower by signing the documents in respect of the said property, thus, the Bank has the first charge over the property in question.

5. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the borrowers. They have taken loan from the IDBI Bank. While taking loan they have mortgaged one of their properties which is the subject matter of this case. As the respondent nos. 2 and 3 failed to liquidate their dues, the bank proceeded against them and possession of the said alleged mortgage property was taken. The petitioner herein who happens to be the purchaser of the said property of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, challenged the order of taking possession before the DRT, Ranchi. The DRT, Ranchi set-aside the possession and restored the possession to the petitioner. The bank thereafter challenged the said order of restoration of possession before DRAT, which reversed the order of DRT, Ranchi. 6. Admittedly the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had taken loan. They had mortgaged the property and submitted the deed of the property with the Bank. This deed was later on found to be forged. During the disbursement of the loan, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 signed various documents and agreements; one of such document is a document creating a charge of this particular property in favour of the Bank.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63KvxHpCrcEgPq%2F%2B5qrtsThiNIeO1d9sq1J1dSwg2QZFd7F&caseno=WPC/1758/2026&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010063662026&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.