Writ jurisdiction is not the forum for deciding competing title claims and sale disputes over mortgaged property.

A writ petition was considered unsuitable for deciding competing title claims and sale disputes arising from mortgaged property sold by a Financial Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The dispute turned on validity of transfers made during the mortgage period and the respective rights flowing from the private sale and the Corporation's sale, which depended on factual proof and determination of inter se civil rights. Such issues were held to be inappropriate for adjudication in public law proceedings under Article 226, and the parties were to pursue remedies before the competent civil forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable for adjudicating the competing title and sale-related claims arising from the mortgaged property and the sale made by the Financial Corporation.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a sale effected by the Financial Corporation in exercise of its statutory power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The writ petition essentially sought determination of competing claims to title, validity of transfers made during the subsistence of the mortgage, and the respective rights flowing from the private sale and the Corporation's sale. Such questions required proof of facts and adjudication of inter se civil rights, which were not appropriate for determination in public law proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The proper course was to leave the parties to their remedies before the competent civil forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained for adjudication of the inter se title dispute and the related sale controversy.

---