TEXTILES Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants herein.

(2.) . This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money and for a mortgage decree.

(3.) . The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,93,056.55 with subsequent interest at 21.5% and for a mortgage decree with the following averments: The first defendant availed a loan facility from the plaintiff Bank as per DD No.964 by discounting a bill drawn on M/s.C.T.M.Textiles, Ahamadabad for Rs.66,501.50 as per Lorry Receipt No.312226 dated 15.4.1982. The said bill was returned unpaid. The first defendant availed another loan facility on 15.4.82 under DD No.975 by discounting a Bill on M/s.C.T.M.Textiles, Ahamadabad for Rs.63,512.33 covered under Lorry Receipt No.312227. This bill was also returned unpaid. The account of the first defendant was debited for the bill amount together with overdue interest. Though the lorry receipt was delivered to the first defendant to enable them to arrange for the sale at Ahemadabad so that the sale proceeds can be adjusted towards the amount due, the defendants have not handed over the sale proceeds. On several occasions the defendants contacted the plaintiff and requested for the return of the bills and offered to deposit the title deeds. The first defendant gave a letter dated 4.6.1982 in that regard. On 4.9.1982, the first defendant has executed necessary loan papers. The defendants 5 and 6 stood as guarantors for over draft limit of Rs.1.60 lakhs. The defendants 2, 5 and 6 also deposited their title deeds with intent to create an equitable mortgage. The defendants 5 and 6 are also jointly and severally liable for the suit claim. An agreement was executed by the defendants on 4.9.1982. The first defendant has executed a promissory note in favour of the defendants 2, 5 and 6 for Rs.1,60,000/-, and the defendants 5 and 6 have endorsed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a notice on 10.12.1982. The defendants sent a reply dated 22.12.1982. The plaintiff is entitled to proceed against the immovable properties also. The first defendant issued a notice dated 29.12.1983. A reply was sent by the plaintiff on 17.1.1984. Since the defendants did not make the payment due, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.