YAMANAPPA Vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unsuccessful defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2011 made in R A No.35/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Badami, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2009 made in O.S. No.225/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Badami, decreeing the suit for recovery of money.

(2.) For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

(3.) The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S.No. 225/1999 against the present appellant-defendant for recovery of Rs.20,355/- along with interest @ 13.5% p.a. along with future interest contending that one Lalsab S/o. Modinasab Awati, resident of Katageri Village had approached the plaintiff bank on 10.11.1998 for financial help for his business, introducing the present defendant as guarantor/co-obligant to get the loan. Accordingly the plaintiff-Bank has sanctioned the loan on 23.11.1998 to an extent of Rs.25,000/- to the said Lalsab with repayment schedule to repay the same at a rate of Rs.690/- with 35 installments commencing from 23.12.1998. According to the Bank, the loan was sanctioned to the above said Lalsab Awati in two installments i.e., on 23.11.1998 of Rs.15,000/- and on 24.11.1998 of Rs.10,000/- in loan account No.18/1998 which stood in the name of the above said borrower. According to the plaintiff - Bank, the said borrower was expired leaving behind no legal heirs. And further stated in the plaint that, as either the main borrower or the present defendant as a guarantor paid the dues to the Bank thereby the defendant became defaulter in payment of the said borrowed amount. The plaintiff - Bank has issued notice on 05.06.1999 to the present defendant to repay the outstanding balance towards the above said loan availed. As the defendant failed to comply in terms of the said legal notice as the main borrower died the suit came to be initiated against the present defendant, who is the guarantor for the recovery of the above said dues, as the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay as his guaranteeship is co-existed and therefore filed the suit.