SUNDICATE BANK Vs. MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 219 of 1989, who suffered a decree at the hands of the first Appellate Court is the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they were available before the Trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged that he had pledged gold ornaments of five sovereigns on 11.11.1981 with the defendant Bank and borrowed a sum of Rs. 2500/- on the security of those gold ornaments. The plaintiff paid Rs. 1918.70 on 8.4.1985 towards the loan amount. The Bank issued a notice dated 4.2.1986 to the plaintiff recalling the loan and informing him that if he failed to discharge the debt, the ornaments would be sold in auction on 27.2.1986. The plaintiff claimed to have paid Rs. 500/- in response to the notice and thereafter he expressed his willingness to discharge the balance amount. But the gold ornaments were not returned to him. A notice was issued by the plaintiff, which caused the defendant to send a reply containing false allegations. The defendant claimed to had sold the jewels. The plaintiff claims that it was unauthorised, illegal and contrary to law. Being an unauthorised sale, it is also stated that the Bank is not entitled to adjust the balance amount due from the sale proceeds. Claiming that he is entitled to return of the ornaments, he laid the suit, or in the alternative claiming Rs. 12,000/-.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit. The pledge was admitted. The defendant disputed that 5 sovereigns of gold were pledged and contended that 30.700 grams which was equal to three and three fourth sovereigns were pledged by the plaintiff. The valuation of jewellery was estimated at Rs. 4500/- and a sum of Rs. 2500/- was given as loan to the plaintiff on execution of a pronote also. The plaintiff was bound to discharge the debt within three years. He did not do so. In case the debt was not paid, the Bank was entitled to cause sale of the ornaments after notice to the plaintiff in compliance with the statutory requirements. The defendant issued notice dated 4.2.1986 informing the plaintiff to wipe off the debt as in case of default the ornaments pledged would be sold. After receiving notice, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 500/-. Thereafter he did not respond. Sale was published in Malayala Manorama daily dated 20.7.1986 and the ornaments were sold in public auction. There is no merit in the allegation that the sale was unauthorised and illegal. It was in accordance with law. The plaintiff was fully aware of the auction. They contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs and the suit would be dismissed.