RADHAKRISHNA JOSHI Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the defendant, Syndicate Bank being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga in R. A. No. 52 of 1997 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff while reversing the finding of the Principal Munsiff, Gulbarga in O. S. No. 388 of 1995.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is a corporate body established under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having registered office at Manipal and having its branch at super Market, Gulbarga. It is the case of the plaintiff that the son of the defendant Vijayakumar had obtained a loan of Rs. 16,000/- under the Self Employment Scheme for doing the business of television servicing situate at H. No. 8-426, Fort Road, Gulbarga. The loan was sanctioned at the rate of 10% interest with monthly installments of Rs. 250/- starting from 28-10-1988 and the last installment was due on 28-1-1994. After obtaining the loan from the Bank, due to ill-health the said Vijaya Kumar expired. According to the plaintiff, Rs. 16,000/- was paid directly to the material suppliers for TV repair shop i. e. , Rs. 2,955/- was paid to M/s. Jagadamba Enterprises and Rs. 13,045 was paid to M/s. Moder Electronics for the material supplied and the goods were also hypothecated. There is also an agreement executed by Vijay Kumar apart from the loan receipt and hypothecation. After the death of Vijay Kumar, the defendant who is his father came forward and promised to pay the loan amount with interest and also executed a guarantee letter dated 29-6-1990 to pay the entire loan balance in installments from the date of advance and in default, to pay the compounded rate of interest. Since the defendant did not adhere to the repayment schedule in terms of the agreement, he was liable to pay the penal interest. It is also stated that inspite of repeated reminders, defendant failed to repay the loan amount and after issuance of legal notice, a suit came to be filed for recovery of Rs. 28,250/- with 14% interest till the date of realisation of the amount.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant denying all averments made in the plaint. According to the defendant, he had no knowledge of the transaction between his son Vijay Kumar and the bank. On the death of Vijay Kumar, the manager of the Bank summoned the defendant and appraised him of the loan taken by Vijay Kumar and that he should repay the amount. As such, the manager of the Bank prevailed upon the defendant and sought some signatures on blank papers. Under bona fide belief, defendant put his signature with an intention to get back some money. The defendant never stood guarantee for the deceased Vijay Kumar nor he undertook to clear the loan borrowed. It is his further case that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. It is contended that the plaintiff ought to have brought the suit through Vijay Kumar through a legal notice and it has not been done.