--1--
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOMPETA
Present: Sri B.B. Nagendra Rao, M.A., LL.M., M.Phil.,
Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta.
Thursday, this the 23rd Day of APRIL-2015
O.S 11/2013.
Between:
State Bank of India, Sompeta, represented by its Branch Manager,
Sompeta Mandalam, Srikakulam district. ... Plaintiff.
And:
1.Reddi Sashi Bhaskar, S/o Subbarao, aged 47 years, Agriculturist,R/o Bonamali village, Post:Bhogabeni, Kanchili Mandal, Srikakulam district.
2. Reddi Lingayya, S/o Ramanna, aged 40years, Agriculturist, R/o Bonamali village, Post:Bhogabeni, Kanchili Mandal,
Srikakulam district ...Defendants
This suit coming on 09.04.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.C.Patnaik, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri M.
Chalapathirao, Advocate for the defendants, having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants to pass a preliminary decree in its favour and against the defendants ; for recovery of
Rs.2,29,608 towards the balance of the amount due to the plaintiff bank as per the account statement filed by the plaintiff bank; personally against the defendants; by sale of the plaint schedule properties which are mortgaged by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank under the registered mortgage bond dated 24.12.2008 as security for the loan with subsequent interest at 12.75% per annum and with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.
1a) The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff bank for sanction of a loan on 24.12.2008 under
K.G.C (Kisan Gold Card) scheme for the sanction of the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) and the plaintiff bank agreed to sanction the loan to the first defendant and the terms and the conditions of loan are that the defendant
No.1 has to repay the loan with interest at 12.75% per annum with half yearly rests in 14 (Fourteen) half yearly installments at the rate of Rs.15000/- with accrued interest thereon. The defendant No.1 has executed a registered simple mortgage bond on 24.12.2008 in favour of the plaintiff -- --2-- bank hypothecating the plaint schedule properties as security for the loan.
The defendant No.1 executed a deed of hypothecation of agreement on 30.12.2008 in favour of the plaintiff bank, hypothecating the properties offered as security for the loan. The defendant No.2 has executed the deed of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff bank on 30.12.2008. The plaintiff bank paid the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 on 30.12.2008 and an account was opened the name of the first defendant showing the payments made by the defendant towards the discharge of the loan amount and the interest accrued, expenses for the realization of the loan amount and other incidental incurred by the plaintiff bank in the Bank books and ledgers maintained by the Bank in the ordinary course of business. The defendant
No.1 has not paid the installments due under the loan in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank officials. The defendant No.1 has to pay a sum of Rs.2,29,608-00 as on 5.5.2012 as per the account filed by the plaintiff bank along with the plaint. Hence the suit is filed.
2) The first defendant filed his written statement adopted memo filed by the 2nd defendant denying the material averments in the plaint inter alia contending that this defendant mainly depending upon agriculture and as he was no source to develop the lands, as per the guide lines of the Government to sanction loans to the needy agriculturists with a view to develop agriculture produce by introducing the scheme “Kisan Gold Cards” purely to develop the agricultural lands in the country and with that sole aim it was directed to sanction K.G.C loans to various ryots within the jurisdiction of the particular bank, and the plaintiff bank is one such bank, which is required to sanction loans for development of agriculture within its jurisdiction. This defendant submits that the lands given as security are the ancestral properties of this defendant and the defendant and his family members come under the purview of small farmers and it belongs to all of them.
Accordingly plaintiff bank sanctioned loan to the defendants. This defendant invested the entire amount of loan on his agricultural fields. But, there was complete failure of crops due to drought and the defendant sustained huge loss. The drought was notified by the Revenue authorities for the said years.
However, the defendant paid certain installments. The defendant approached the plaintiff bank officials and informed that there was failure of crop and requested them to grant time for payment of the land amount. The plaintiff bank officials though agreed to grant me, but hastily--- --3-- filed the suit with all false and untenable allegations though there is still time to pay the loan amount as fixed by the plaintiff bank.
Subsequent to sanction of the loan to this defendant the Government granted benefit of loan waiver to all the agricultural loans which are pending.
As the loan borrowed by the defendant is an agricultural loan, he is entitled for the benefit under Agricultural Debt Relief Laws as per the instructions and guide lines issued by the Government as suggested by the Reserve Bank of
India. Some of the documents filed by the plaintiff bank in the above suit are created for the purpose of filing of the suit only. Therefore considering the benefit granted by the government the small and marginal farmers under
Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme , he is entitled for the same and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. The interest claimed is highly excessive as the plaintiff bank calculated compound interest and the plaintiff filed the account copy along with plaint is not correct and it was not endorsed by the bank.
The suit is devoid of merits. The suit is not maintainable in law. The suit is not filed within 3 years from the date of execution of the documents. So, the suit is barred by limitation and hence to dismiss the suit with costs.
3) Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the document filed by the plaintiff bank is binding on the defendants?
2) Whether the defendants are entitled the benefits as contended by them?
3) Whether the interest calculated by the plaintiff bank is not correct?
4) Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
--4--
During trial, on behalf of plaintiff bank, PW.1 examined got marked
Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of defendants, DW.1 examined (eschewed); no documents marked.
5) Heard both sides.
6) ISSUE.No.1:- “Whether the document filed by the plaintiff bank is binding on the defendants?”
Ans:- The Plaintiff bank filed the suit represented by the Branch
Manager Sri. K.Jagadeeswararao, but examined one Bendalam Usha said to be Field Officer of Plaintiff bank, got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4.
7) The plaintiff bank fails to examine the person who filed the suit by name K.Jagadeeswararao, Branch Manager. The reasons best known to the plaintiff bank.
8) The defendants filed a written statement, more particularly contested that, the documents filed by the plaintiff bank are created for the purpose of filing of the suit only. When the defendants specifically contested that the documents filed by the plaintiff bank are created, it is burden on the part of the plaintiff bank to establish that the documents filed under Exs.A.1 to A.4 are genuine; but not created for the purpose of the suit. On perusal of Exs.A.1 to A.4 marked through PW.1, none of the documents referring, more particularly State Bank of India, Sompeta branch.
The document under Ex.A.4 was attested by one K.Jagadeeswararao,
Branch Manager, but the said witness is not examined on behalf plaintiff bank.
9) During cross-examination PW.1 admitted and stated that she has “not” sanction the loan to D1; she have “not” known about the sanction of the loan to the defendants. It means PW.1 is 'not' concerned to the transaction. So also not concern to the sanction of the loan to the defendants. Exs.A.1 to A.4 are not bears the signatures of the then Branch
Manager of Plaintiff bank and those documents are silent who sanction the loan to the defendants. Exs.A.4 though signed by K.Jagadeeswararao,
Branch Manager, but he was not examined on behalf of plaintiff Bank.
--5--
So the plaintiff bank fails to discharge its burden to establish that the documents filed by the plaintiff bank are binding on the defendants.
The issue is answered accordingly against Plaintiff Bank..
10) ISSUE.No.2:- “Whether the defendants are entitled the benefits as contended by them?”
Ans:- The contention of the defendants as per their written statement is that, the Government granted benefit of loan waiver to all the agricultural loans which are pending/overdue as the loan borrowed by the defendants is an agricultural loan and hence they are entitled for benefit under Agricultural
Debt Relief Laws as per the instructions and guide lines issued by the
Government as suggested by the Reserve Bank of India.
11) The witness examined plaintiff bank ie., PW.1 though stated that she ha not sanctioned the loan and she has not known about the sanction of the loan to defendant; but stated that the suit loan is sanctioned for
Agricultural purpose and further admitted that it is true subsequent to sanction of loan the Government of Andhra Pradesh declared drought during the year 2007. When the defendants are specifically contesting that they are entitled for the benefits of Loan Waiver towards Agricultural Loans, it is the burden of the plaintiff bank to establish that the present suit transaction has “not” covered under the benefits of loan waiver. So no record is forth coming that the defendants are “not” entitled to the benefits as contended by them. The plaintiff bank fails to discharge its burden.
Hence the issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiff bank.
12) ISSUE.No.3:- “Whether the interest calculated by the plaintiff bank is not correct?”
Ans:- The Plaintiff Bank filed the suit through one Sri.
K.Jageeswararao, Branch Manager, but examined one Bendalam Usha said to be Field Officer of the Plaintiff bank, got marked Ex.A.4 ie., Computerized attested true copy of the account .
--6--
13) The defendants are specifically questioned and contested that the interest claimed is highly excessive as the plaintiff bank calculated compound interest and the plaintiff bank filed account copy along with the plaint is not correct and it was not endorsed by the bank and hence the suit is not maintainable in law.
14) On perusal of Ex.A.4, it is attested by one Sri. K.
Jagadeeswararao, Branch Manager who filed the suit against the defendants. But the said Sri. K. Jagadeeswararao, Branch Manager has not examined on behalf of Plaintiff bank, the same is an infirmity to the case of the plaintiff bank.
15) The witness examined for plaintiff bank is one Bendalam Usha as
PW.1, said to be Field Officer. But the said PW.1 during cross-examination stated that she was not sanction the loan and she has not known about the sanction of the loan to the defendants. So the competent authority under
Ex.A.4 is not stepped into witness box and hence the Court is of opinion, the calculation of interest is claimed by the plaintiff bank under Ex.A.4 is not correct.
Accordingly the issue is answered against the plaintiff bank.
16) ISSUE.No.4:- “Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?
Ans:- The plaintiff bank filed the suit through one
K.Jagadeeswararao, Branch Manager to pass a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff bank for recovery of Rs.2,29,608-00 from the defendants and by sale of the plaint schedule property which are mortgaged by the defendants. The said K.Jagadeeswararao , Branch Manager has “not” examined by the plaintiff bank. The reasons best known to the plaintiff bank.
The witness examined for plaintiff bank ie., PW.1 is said to be Field Officer.
The Learned Counsel for the defendants specifically argued that PW.1 has “no authorization nor concerned to transaction nor competent” to give and depose on behalf of plaintiff bank and hence the suit is not ----- --7-- maintainable, accordingly the plaintiff bank is not entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.
17) Considering the evidence of PW.1, the documents under Exs.A.1 to A.4; the Court is of opinion, that the plaintiff bank “fails” to place any record about the “authenticity” of PW.1, more particularly that PW.1 is Field
Officer representing the Plaintiff Bank and thereby is competent to depose the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff bank. Except Exs.A.1 to A.4 which are not concerned to the PW.1, there is “no” substantial documentary evidence to establish that PW.1 is the Field Officer. So also competent to depose the evidence before the Court. Once the witness PW.1 admitted and stated specifically she has not sanctioned the loan and she have not known about the sanctioning of the loan to the defendants, it is the burden on the part of the plaintiff bank to examine the officer concerned to Exs.A.1 to A.4. So also the officer concerned who sanction and concern to the suit transaction. So the plaintiff bank miserably “fails” to establish and to discharge its burden.
Once any party is “fails” to discharge its burden, my be the plaintiff bank the said party is “not” entitled for the suit claim. Hence the Court is of opinion that the plaintiff bank is “not” entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.
Accordingly the suit is liable to be dismissed.
The issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiff bank.
18) ISSUE.No.5:- “To what relief?” Ans:- In view of the findings and answers given to Issues No.1 to 4; the
Court is of opinion, that the plaintiff bank fails to examine the authorities concerned and authorized person for Ex.A.1 to A.4; the plaintiff bank fails to establish that the defendants are not entitled for the benefits of waiver; the plaintiff bank fails to establish that the calculated interest under Ex.A.4 is correct by examining one K.Jagadeeswararao, PW.1 is not the person who sanction the loan and she do not know about the sanction of the loan, and hence the plaintiff bank not entitled the suit claim. Accordingly the liable to be dismissed.
19) In the result the suit is “dismissed”, with costs to the defendants.
--8--
Dictated to the Translator/Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23rd day of April, 2015.
Senior Civil Judge,
Sompeta.
Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined. For Plaintiff:- PW.1/Bendalam Usha.
For defendant:- DW.1/Reddy Seshi Bhaskararao (eschewed). Documents marked For Plaintiff:- Ex.A.1/Registered simple mortgage bond dated 24.12.2008. Ex.A.2/Hypothecation of agreement dated 30.12.2008. Ex.A.3/Deed of guarantee dated 30.12.2008. Ex.A.4/Computerized attested true copy of the account. For defendants:- “Nil”
Senior Civil Judge,
Sompeta.