To Think & To understand

 These phrases have immense effect upon our life , Our life rounds between two phrases and we spend our life to understand the real things 

In our Hindu joint family our relations are so interrelated some time we surrender our emotions and even rights for the pious tie of joint family 

The principle to think and to understand applies in our every  area of life , this principle is not related to our joint family only  but it applies in each and every step we proceed in our daily life 

Our logics are some related to principles and some are  very practical   Some time our logics are tried by courts and the battle comes in last when we take last breath of judgement of final court 

This process to think and to understand is time consuming but it gives a satisfaction when resolved by the principle of understanding 

The gap between to think and to understand resolved some time by our mutual consent and this is a principle where we surrender our logics for the shake of solution of “To understand “

Many battles in our history was fought for securing the result between to think and to understand the universal concept of justice 

Maintainability of suit against sarfaesi proceedings

 A civil suit  was filed by plaintiff third party smt  Prabha jain against Sarfaesi proceedings  initiated by central bank of india 

central bank filed application under order 7 rule 11 of CPC claiming suit is barred under section  17 of the sarfacie act and appeal is the only remedy to DRT 

Trial court rejected application under order 7 rule 11 and bank went to high court against rejection of application &  high court accepted the appeal of central Bank and held  that trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and  accepted appeal of bank

The matter went in Supreme Court by respondent / original plaintiff and Supreme Court observed the relief prayed in suit and documents pertaining to and  concluded that suit is maintainable as the sale deed and mortgage deed was executed without making partition of share in property and prayer in suit was prayed of document of sale to be declared  nullity and sec 17 of Sarfaesi act does not oust the jurisdiction of “ any  person” The question of validity of sale deed can not be decided by DRT The only argument posed by bank  that under sec 34 of Sarfaesi civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit The jurisdiction to declare sale deed or a mortgage deed illegal is vested with civil court under sec 9 of cpc 

DRT can never have the jurisdiction to decide such civil disputes of title between a third party & borrower 

Number of appeals of Banks were also decided by common judgement where matter of adoption in title were involved and Supreme Court dismissed these appeals of bank and order of high court of Madhya Pradesh was set aside 

This was in essence  in reported case title  central Bank of India & ors v/s  Prabha jain & ors  civil appeal number 1876 of 2016 judgement delivered on dt 09/01/2025 

Rules inconsistencies to Act

 Supreme Court ordered in appeal  of dismissed writ  filed in high court , that particular rule framed in statue if is inconsistent to provisions of act , to be declared ultra virus and accepted appeal  This was held in civil appeal number 3954/2025! K Gopi v/s The sub registrar & ors  decided on 07/04/2025 

High court relied upon rule 55A(I) and dismissed writ Supreme Court found that rule making power under section  69 can not be exercised to make a rule inconsistent to registration act 1908 and declared rule 55A(I) to be ultra virus and accepted appeal