BHEEMAPPA Vs. PRIMARY LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the appeal filed before it affirming the order of Award made by the Arbitrator under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (in short the 'Act') in a dispute arising under Section 70 thereof. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:

(2.) The petitioners father borrowed a sum of Rs.12,960/- from the first respondent-society in the year 1974-75 with a condition to repay the same in instalments and the loan was secured by a mortgage under a Deed; the term of the loan was that the same shall be repaid fifteen annual instalments as stipulated in the bond. On the allegation that the petitioners' father did not pay the amount, steps were taken to recover the same by initiating proceedings under Section 70 of the Act. An award thereto came to be made. The only ground pointed out by the petitioners in this writ petition is that the award is bad as barred by limitation as action is brought after a lapse of six years, after the cause of action arose, as provided under Section 70-A of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the term of repayment of loan was that, even if there is a single default, the entire amount due thereunder becomes due and payable by the parties and therefore, the dispute should have been raised on or before 31-3-1983. In this case, it is contended that dispute had been filed in the year 1984 and that the same is clearly barred by limitation. Section 70-A of the Act reads as follows:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the first respondent relying upon a decision of the Privy Council in Lasa Din v Mt. Gulab Kanwar And Others, AIR 1932 Privy Council 207 contended that a proviso of this nature for recovery of entire amount with single default clause is far the benefit of the mortgagee and the time limit within which the payment should be made in instalments is " exclusively for the benefit of the mortgagees" and that it purported to give them an option either to enforce their security at once, or if the security was ample, to stand by their investment for the full term of the mortgage.