PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. HARJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is a Bank and has filed the present suit to get a decree for Rs. 1,87,401.49.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 Harjeet Kaur applied for financial assistance of Rs. 1,50,000.00 against the mortgage of her Bungalow No. C/ 30, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. She also agreed to pay interest @ 7% over and above the Reserve Bank of India rate of interest, with minimum interest of 16 per cent per annum. The said prayer of defendant No. 1 Harjeet Kaur was accepted. On 27th May, 1976, an amount of Rs. l,50,000.00 was paid to her on executing equitable mortgage and it was agreed to repay the amount of Rs. l,50,000.00 in monthly instalment of Rs. 3,500.00 but the defendant No. 1 never paid regular instalments. Therefore, additional secuirty was taken from her by obtaining the guarantee executed by defendant No. 2 on 6th May, 1977. On 30th September, 1977, the defendant No. 1 was owing a sum of Rs. 1,65,841.67 and the defendant No. I had confirmed the same by executing the documents. When the defendant No. 1 failed to pay the amount though she was called upon to do so by issuing notice, the plaintiff has filed the present suit to get a decree of Rs. 1,87,401.49.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 contested the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement. It is contended by defendant No. 1 that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not true and correct one. She was never required any loan and she has never applied for the loan. The alleged document of mortgage deed is not admissible in evidence as it is not properly stamped and registered. According to her, her husband defendant No. 2 was having some dealings with the plaintiff-Bank on account of his business. As her husband was having dealing with the Bank, the Bank Officers were coming to her husband defendant No. 2, and on account of their pressuring him, he must have given the title deeds to the plaintiff-Bank but she never handed over the title deeds nor she had executed any documents. Thus, there is no parity of contact between her and the plaintiff-Bank. She has also contended that the plaintiff did not properly sign and verify the plaint and thus she contended that plaintiff's suit be dismissed with costs.