Prior mortgage and registered charge prevail over later sale deeds; unchallenged recovery order cannot be reopened by belated writ challenge.

A prior mortgage and registered charge remained enforceable against the properties because the agreement to sell and later sale deeds were executed only after the money suit had been instituted. The later transfers could not override the bank's earlier secured interest, and the principle of lis pendens did not displace the pre-existing mortgage and charge. The challenge to the Recovery Officer's order also failed because the objection rejection order had attained finality without a statutory appeal, and the later writ challenge was not saved by Rule 68B on the facts. The secured claim therefore remained enforceable against the properties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement to sell and subsequent sale deeds executed after institution of the money suit could override the bank's prior mortgage and charge and defeat enforcement against the properties. (ii) Whether the challenge to the Recovery Officer's order and the proposed sale was barred by finality of the unappealed order and by limitation under Rule 68B.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement to sell and subsequent sale deeds executed after institution of the money suit could override the bank's prior mortgage and charge and defeat enforcement against the properties.

Analysis: The properties had already been mortgaged to the bank and further charges had been created and registered long before the agreement to sell. The sale deeds were executed only after the money suit had been instituted. In that situation, the later transfer could not take precedence over the earlier secured interest of the creditor. The principle of lis pendens did not assist the appellant because the decisive factor was the pre-existing mortgage and charge, which remained enforceable against the properties notwithstanding the later sale.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent bank.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the Recovery Officer's order and the proposed sale was barred by finality of the unappealed order and by limitation under Rule 68B.

Analysis: The Recovery Officer's order rejecting the objections was passed in 2006, but no statutory appeal was filed and the order attained finality. The writ petition was filed only later when attachment steps were taken. The plea based on Rule 68B was also rejected because, on the facts, the attachment and subsequent proceedings did not show any barred sale process within the meaning of that rule as applied in the recovery proceedings.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent bank.

Final Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish any legal ground to interfere with enforcement of the secured claim against the properties, and the dismissal of the writ challenge was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent transferee cannot defeat a prior mortgage and registered charge by relying on a later agreement to sell or sale deed, and an unchallenged recovery order that has attained finality cannot be reopened through a belated writ challenge.

---