UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK Vs. B M MAHADEVA BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal is preferred by an unsuccessful plaintiff against the Judgment and decree passed by the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 1765/1980.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are as under. The plaintiff filed a suit against defendants 1 and 2 praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 17,348.15p, together with costs and current interest at the contractual rate. Defendant No. 1 (since deceased) was the son of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 was a brick manufacturer and he approached the plaintiff Bank for financial assistance and accordingly over-draft facility to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- was sanctioned by the plaintiff Bank in favour of defendant No. 1 on 23-3-1974. On the same day defendant No. 1 also executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 was the guarantor for the said loan and she also executed an agreement of guarantee to the effect as evidenced by Ex.P. 3. It was agreed between the parties that defendant No. 1 should pay interest at 10% with monthly rests, together with interest at 3% above the Reserve Bank of India rate of interest. The defendant also acknowledged the said debt and promised to pay the said sum by his letter dated 24-7-1974 and 18-7-1975. However, the amount taken towards over-draft facility was not paid by defendant No. 1. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff Bank issued notice to both the defendants. However, the same did not meet with any response. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit in question praying for the reliefs referred to herinabove.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 resisted the suit of the plaintiff by his written statement. He is shown to have denied almost all the allegations made in the plaint, including the allegation that he had borrowed the amount, by executing a suit pronote. He also denied the allegation that defendant No. 2 stood as surety for the said loan. He took the contention that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff i.e. the agreement and pronote are not genuine. He denied that he agreed to pay interest as claimed by the plaintiff. He also took the contention that the suit was barred by time. In sum he prayed for the disposal of the suit.