CANARA BANK Vs. PUSHPA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Order, I propose to dispose of interim application filed by the plaintiff, in this Suit under Order 38 Rule 5, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this application are, that the plaintiff instituted a simple Suit for recovery of money for a sum of Rs. 3,71,863.37. The bank claims that at the request of P.P.Gupta, overdraft limit was sanctioned on 15th January, 1982 and was enhanced to Rs. 2,09,931.11 on 23rd September, 1985. In the year 1985, P.P.Gupta and his wife stated to have executed a demand promissory note under which late Shri P.P.Gupta and defendant No. I jointly and severally promised to pay to the plaintiff bank the said sum of Rs-2,09,931.11 vith interest @ 7.5% per annum above RBI rate with the minimum of @ 17.5% per annum compounded quarterly for value receipt.

(3.) This case of the plaintiff is denied by the defendants in their written statement. In the written statement, the stand taken is that the alleged promissory note was never executed by defendant No.1 and her signatures on the promissory note have been denied. It is further stated that the defendants in the Suit have not inherited any property from the deceased, as such, they have no liability to pay any amounts. The defendants in paragraph 7 of the written statement have stated that P.P.Gupta had been indulging in unlawful and illegal activities. He had cheated several persons and had wasted all his monies and assets. The defendants say that they have inherited nothing from the deceased. In the replication the bank has not specifically denied the allegation that the defendants did not inherit anything from the deceased. The bank has taken the stand that this fact is denied for want of knowledge. In the I.A. the averment of this bank is that the property bearing No. 66 Model Basti, New Delhi belonged to the deceased P.P.Gupta and his wife Mrs. Pushpa Gupta jointly. The said property is stated to have now develop upon the defendants herein. In reply to the interim application, the defendants have stated that the property in question did not belong to P.P.Gupta but belong to Shri Deep Chand father of P.P.Gupta. Deep Chand had executed a Will in favour of Bhagwati Devi his wife while executing the Will and Deep Chand had Willed that after the death of Smt. Bhagwati Devi, the house may be divided in equal shares to his sons. Deep Chand had five sons. The defendants, therefore, say that at best each one of them has 1/5th share in the property.