Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi

(j) 1

DRAFT

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SMT. P.V.P. LALITHA SIVA JYOTHI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK.

FAC.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIDDIPET.

Monday; this the 2()th day of February 2017.

OS.No. 91 OF 2016.

Between:- M/s H.D.F.C., Bank Ltd., Ameerpet Branch, Rep.by its Deputy Manager, Retail Agriculture Business.

. .. Plaintiff

AND

1) Muddam Premlatha W /o Mallareddy, Aged about 62 Yrs., Occu: Agriculture, R/ o H.No.2-34, Dacharam village, Gajwel mandal, Medak district.

2) Muddam Ramaschandar Reddy S/o Mallareddy, Aged about 42 Yrs. Occu: Agriculture, R/ o H.No.2-34, Dacharam village, Gajw~l mandal, Medak district.

3) Ram Reddy Chetiarededy S/o Kanna Reddy, Aged about 54 Yrs., Occu: Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-28, Dacharam village, Gajwel mandal, Medak district. Defendants.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 17.02.2017 in the presence of M/s C.Vinod Reddy, D.Narsimulu Advocates for the plaintiff and that the Defendants were set expatte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments of counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made and delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,24,525-81 paise 1.

basing on bank loan transaction.

The case of the plaintiff as could be seen from the plaint 2. averments in brief is that the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 had obtained ·-- Agricultural Credit Overdraft/ Cash Credit Facilities under Kissan Gold

Card Scheme of Rs.2,50,000/- on 23.11.2010 and agreed to repay the said loan amount with interest of 12% per annum and also obtained 2

j

Term Loan KGC of Rs.l,00,0-...10/- and agreed to repay the said lr'Qfln amount with an interest of 13% per annum and the Defendant No. l & 2 executed Regd. Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds, Demand promissory notes along with letter of Continuity for D.P., Note,

Declaration-cum-Indemnity, Affidavit, Authorization/Declaration and

Undertaking and furnished the Defendant No.3 as guarantor and the

Defendant Nos. l to 3 executed •·Agreement for Overdraft/ Cash Credit cum Guarantee cum Hypothecation dated 25.11.2010. The grievance of the plaintiff-bank is that in spite of repeated demands including the legal notice dated 28.05.2016 the defendants failed to discharge their liability. Hence, the suit.

3. As seen from record, the Defendant No. l to 3 were remained exparte and no steps were taken till date to set aside the exparte order.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

5. The point that arises for determination is;

"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit

amount of Rs.5,24,525-81 paise?

POINT:-

6. The plaintiff in support of their case got examined their Deputy

Manager as PWl and got marked Exs.Al to Ex.Al 7 in support of their case.

7. PW 1 filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and he reiterated the plaint averments in his chief affidavit.

8. The evidence of PW 1 discloses that Defendant No.1 & 2 had jointly obtained Agricultural Credit Overdraft/ Cash Credit Facilities under Kissan Gold Card Scheme of Rs.2,50,000/- and Term Loan KGC of Rs.1,00,000/- on 23.11.2010 from the plaintiff bank and they

0

3 '\-greed to repay the loan amounts \In.th interest@ 12% and 13% per annum respectively and they executed Regd. Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds, Demand promissory notes along with letter of

Continuity for D.P., Note, Declaration-cum-Indemnity, Affidavit,

Authorization/Declaration and Undertaking and furnished the

Defendant No.3 as guarantor and the Defendant Nos. I to 3 executed

Guarantee cum Overdraft/ Cash Credit cum Agreement for He further stated that in spite of Hypothecation dated 25.11.2010. repeated demands, the defendants failed to discharge their liability.

The documentary evidence relied on by the plaintiff-bank are 9. Exs.Al to Al 7. Ex.Al is the Loan Application of the 1st Defendant dt; 28.10.2010, Ex.A2 is the Sanction of Agriculture Credit Over Draft/

Cash credit facility letter dt; 23.11.2010, Ex.A3 is the sanction of agriculture credit term loan facility letter dated 23.11.2010, Ex.A4 is the registered memorandum of deposit of title deed bearing Doc.No.

5692/2010, Ex.AS & A6 are the demand promissory notes dated 25.1 l'.2010, Ex.A7 is the letter of continuity for D.P., Note dt; 25.11.2010, Ex.AB is the Agreement for over draft/ cash credit cum guarantee cum hypothecation dated 25.11.2010, Ex.A9 is the agreement for term loan cum guarantee cum hypothecation dt; 25.11.2010, Ex.AI0 is the declaration cum indemnity given by the 1st

Defendant dt; 25.11.2010, Ex.All is the affidavit given by }st and 2nd defendants dated -nil, Ex.A12 is the authorization/declaration and undertaking given by the 1st and 2nd defendants dated nil, Ex.Al3 is the statement of account of 1st defendant, Ex.A14 is the office copy of legal notice dated 28.05.2016 along with postal receipts, Ex.A IS & A16 are the returned covers of 1st and 2nd defendants and Ex.Al 7 is the postal acknowledgment of Defendant No.3.

4 . Wl

10. The un-challenged evidence of p pled with Exs.Al to., cou stands un-rebutted and proves the suit cal • . 1 • m His evidence is cogent and consistent and there is nothing to is e i . . d' b 1· eve his testimony. The

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 were already remained ex parte.

11. For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff established suit claim and therefore, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendants with costs. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

12. In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.5,24,525-81 paise with interest on the principal amount of

Rs.3,50,000 /- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. Time for redemption is four months.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of February 2017.

i • = I ?-1

fw ~

SENIOR C~Lv :roDGE, ~ MEDAK.

FAC.SENIOR CML JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF

PWl A.Yogananda Swamy, Deputy Manager, HDFC Bank.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT

--None--

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.Al Loan Application of the 1st Defendant dt; 28.10.2010. Ex.A2 Sanction of Agriculture Credit Over Draft/ Cash credit facility letter dt; 23.11.2010. Ex.A3 Sanction of agriculture credit term loan facility letter dt; 23.11.2010

I 5 ~Ex.A4 ~~~~;~~~~~~;a;dum of deposit of title deed bearing

Ex.AS & A6 Demand promissory notes dated 25.11.2010. Ex.A7 Letter of continuity for D.P., Note dt; 25.11.2010. A greement or over draft/ cash credit cum guarantee cum fi Ex.AS hypothecation dated 25.11.201 O. Ex.A9 Agreement for term loan cum guarantee cum hypothecation dt; 25.11.2010. Declaration cum indemnity given by the 1st Defendant Ex.Alo dt; 25.11.2010. Affidavit given by 1st and 2nd defendants dated -nil.

Ex.All

Authorization/ declaration and undertaking given by the Ex.Al2 1st and 2nd defendants dated nil. Statement of account of 1st defendant. Ex.A13 Office copy of legal notice dated 28.05.2016 along with Ex.Al4 postal receipts. Ex.A15 & A16 Returned covers of 1st and 2nd defendants. Postal acknowledgment of Defendant No.3. Ex.A17

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

--Nil-

NJ(~) '2-0( ri-f ~

SENIOR C~~GE,

MEDAK.

FAC.SENIOR CML JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

1

TD

DRAFT

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CML JUDGE AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SMT. P.V.P. LALITHA SIVA JYOTHI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK.

FAC.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIDDIPET.

Monday; this the 2()th day of February 2017.

OS.No. 56 OF 2016.

Between:- State Bank of India, ADB, Siddipet. Rep.by its Branch Manager by name T.S.Rajkumar.

. .. Plaintiff

AND

1) Myadari Laxmi Narayana S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 42 Yrs., Occu: Agriculture, R/o Gangapuram village, R.M.Thoguta, Dist:Medak.

2) Myadari Raju S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 30 Yrs., Occu: Agriculture, R/ o Gangapuram village, R.M.Thoguta, Dist:Medak.

Defendants.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 17.02.2017 in the presence of Sri K.Shiva Charan, Advocate for the plaintiff and that the Defendants were set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments of counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made and delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,14,595-3 basing 1.

on bank loan transaction.

The case of the plaintiff as could be seen from the plaint 2. averments in brief is that the Defendants obtained Agricultural Term

Loan of Rs.4,50,000/- for the purpose of purchase of tractor and trailer on 11.01.2010 and Crop loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.02.2010 from the plaintiff bank and they agreed to repay the loan amount with a minimum interest @ 12.75% per annum payable in 18 half yearly installments of Rs.25,000/- plus interest commencing from the year 2010 and executed Regd.Mortgage Deed by mortgaging the property towards security for the suit loan on 02.01.2010 and also executed

1~~

-

~

(,'11-:!.l\- 2

o-v6/-

HyPothecation Agreement dated 11.01.2010. .n 'l-'1-'Z1 The grievance of J:b..e plaintiff-Bank is that in spite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to discharge their liability. Hence, the suit.

3. As seen from record, the Defendant No. I & 2 were remained exparte and no steps were taken till date to set aside the exparte order.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

5. The point that arises for determination is· , "Whether the plaintiff 1·s t·t1 d I, amount of Rs.8,14,595-3 ? .1or recovery of suit en I e

POINT:-

6. The plaintiff in support of their case got examined their Assistant Manager as PW! and got marked Exs.Al to Ex.Min support of their case.

7 . PW 1 filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and he reiterated the plaint averments in his chief affidavit.

8. The evidence of PWl discloses that Defendant No.I & 2 had jointly obtained Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.4,50,000/- for the purpose of purchase of tractor and trailer on 11.01.2010 and Crop loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for raising crops on 17.02.2010 from the plaintiff bank and they agreed to repay the loan with minimum interest@ 12. 75% per annum payable in 18 half yearly installments@

Rs.25,000/- plus interest commencing from the year 2010 and they executed Hypothecation Agreement dt; 11.01.2010 and also executed

Regd. Mortgage Deed bearing Doc.No.8/2010 dated 02.01.2010 by mortgaging their property towards security for the suit loan. He further deposed that the plaintiff bank seized the tractor and trailer from the defendant an d Sold the same in open auction and the sale

------

,·~ JU' 3 . <" C AE Cf

.,..J '

....

proceeds are adjusted towards the term loan of the defendant and still the defendants are due the suit amount. He further stated that in spite of repeated demands, the defendants failed and neglected to clear the dues for the said two loans and failed to discharge their liability.

The documentary evidence relied on by the plaintiff-bank are 9. Ex.Al is the Hypothecation Agreement dated Exs.Al to A4. 11.02.2010, ExA2 is Regd. Mortgage Deed bearing Doc.No.8/2010,

dated 02.01.2010, Ex.A3 is the true extract of account bearing

No.31020572429 and Ex.A4 is the true extract of account bearing

No.31061395576.

The un-challenged evidence of PWl coupled with Exs.Al to A4 10. stands un-rebutted and proves the suit claim. His evidence is cogent and consistent and there is nothing to disbelieve his testimony. The defendants were already remained ex parte.

For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs I am of the 11. considered opinion that the plaintiff established suit claim and therefore, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendants with costs. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs for a 12. sum of Rs.8,14,595/- with interest on the principal amount of

Rs.5,50,000/- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. Time for redemption is four months.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of February 2017.

PlP LQ_A I

SENIOR CML v;Jgk:1YJ

MEDAK.

FAC.SENIOR CML JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF

PWl N.Santosh Chander, Asst.Manager, SBI (ADB).

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT

--None--

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.Al Hypothecation Agreement dated 11.02.2010. ExA2 Regd.Mortgage Deed bearing Doc.No.8/2010, dt; 2.1.2010. Ex.A3 True extract of account bearing No.31020572429. Ex.A4 True extract of account bearing No.31061395576.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

--Nil-

f40~ ')

SENIOR ~.JL ::i~ ~ f)

MEDAK.

FAC.SENIOR CML JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

- 1

DRAFT

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CML JUDGE AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SMT. P.V.P. LALITHA SIVA JYOTHI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK.

FAC.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIDDIPET.

Monday; this the 2()th day of February 2017.

OS.No. 57 OF 2016.

Between:- State Bank of India, ADB, Siddipet. Rep. by its Branch Manager by name T.S.Rajkumar.

...Plaintiff

AND

Beepireddy Narsaiah@ Narsa Reddy S/o Malla Reddy, Aged about 70 Yrs., Occu: Agriculture, R/o Sikindlapur village, Chinnakodur mandal, Medak district. Defendants.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 17-.02.2017 in the presence uf Sri K.Shiva Charan, Advocate for the plaintiff and that the Defendant was set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments of counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made and delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,92,644-55 paise 1. basing on bank loan transaction.

The case of the plaintiff as could be seen from the plaint 2. averments in brief is that the Defendant obtained Agricultural Term

Loan of Rs.4, 00, 000 / - for the purpose of purchase of tractor and towards crop loan on trailer on 29.06.2009 and Rs.1,00,000/- 15.10.2009 from the plaintiff bank and the defendant agreed to repay the loan amount with a minimum interest @ 11.25% per annum payable in 18 half yearly installments of Rs.22,222/- plus interest commencing from the year 2010 and executed Regd.Mortgage Deed on 17.06.2009 by mortgaging his property towards security and also

I • t, ' 0 "O ~ .... .E

.... b .8

IS ~ I} ....., ent dated 30.06.2009. The &1-1. •';i ..0 th tion Agreeill. ~,-S ;J! ~

r/

executed Hypo eca . f epeated demands the defen~ ai . that in spite o r "\, ~ f the plaintiff-bank is . o the suit. . liability. Hence, failed to discharge his J ·ned exparte and twas remai d the Defen an d As seen from recor '

3. 'de the exparte order. till date to s~t as1 tak no steps were en ed counsel for the plaintiff. Heard the earn 1 4.

. th t ari·ses for determination is; The point a 5.

recovery of suit

"Whether the plaintiff _is ~ntitled for t fRS 6 92 644-55 pa1se? amoun o • , ' •

POINT:- . support of their case got examined their The plaintiff 1n 6. r . rt Assistant Manager as PWl and got marked Exs.Al to Ex.A4 in suppo of their case. .., pw'i filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and he 7. reiterated the plaint avennents i~ his chief affidavit.

8. The evidence of PWl discloses that Defendant had obtained j Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.4,00,000 /- for the purpose of purchase of tractor and trailer on 29.06.2009 and Crop loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for raising crops on 15.10.2009 froJ? the plaintiff bank and he agreed to repay the loan with minimum interest @ 11.25% per annum payable in 18 half yearly installments @ Rs.22,222 / - plus interest and they executed Hypothecation Agreement dt; 30.06.2009 and also executed

Regd. Mortgage Deed bearing Doc.No.3323/2009 dated 17.06.2009.

He further deposed that the plaintiff bank seized the tractor and trailer from the defendant and sold the same in open auction and the sale proceeds of Rs.1,51,000 / - are adjusted to the term loan account of the defendant and still he is due the suit amount. He further stated that

--------~

~ � ~ ~

~ i

t \· 3

;

i

~ , in spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to discharge his 11 1 liability.

The documentary evidence relied on by the plaintiff-bank are 9. Ex.Al is the Hypothecation Agreement dated Exs.Al to A4. 30.06.2009, ExA2 is Regd. Mortgage Deed bearing Doc.No.3323/2009, dt; 17.06.2009, Ex.A3 is the true extract of account bearing

No.30808504633 and Ex.A4 is the true extract of account bearing

No.30924313262.

The un-challenged evidence of PWl coupled with Exs.Al to A4 10. stands un-rebutted and proves the suit claim. His evidence is cogent and consistent and there is nothing to disbelieve his testimony. The defendants were already remained ex parte.

For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs I am of the 11. considered opinion that the plaintiff established suit claim and therefore, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendants with costs. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs for a 12. sum of Rs.6,92,644/- with interest on the principal amount of

Rs.5,00,000 /- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. Time for redemption is four months.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of February 2017.

p cpuui\ r, ·' 1-J

SENIOR C~LUu~~l / / MEDAK.

FAC.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE l.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF

PWl N.Santosh Chander, Asst.Manager, SBI (ADB).

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT

--None--

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.Al Hypothecation Agreement dated 30.06.2009. ExA2 Regd. Mortgage Deed bearing Doc.No.3323/2009, dt; 17.06.2009. I Ex.A3 • True extract of _account bearing No.30808504633. Ex.A4 True extract of account bearing No.30924313262.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT • --Nil-

p L(.)u.. -vJl 7 ~

SENIOR C~L~GE, ~[J

MEDAK.

FAC.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIDDIPET.

,. ;··)' f ~ '. i ' ·, 4._ J ~