UCO BANK Vs. E C CHINNANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the decree and Judgment in O. S. No. 66 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri. The plaintiff UCO Bank has lost his case before the trial Court is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE averments in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal in brief are as follows: the first defendant had approached for a loan with the plaintiff for the purpose of a Tractor and a Trailor for a sum of Rs. 1,18,500/- and the same was sanctioned by the plaintiff with the following conditions.

(3.) THE second defendant had adopted the written statement filed by the first defendant as follows: the first defendant has submitted a loan application with the plaintiff in the first week of January 1983 for the purchase of Tractor and Trailor for a sum of Rs. 1,18,400/- and after satisfying with the requirements, the plaintiff has sanctioned the loan in favour of the first defendant for which the second defendant stood as a guarantor. A deed of hypothecation was also executed by the first defendant on 18. 1. 1993 and has also executed a promissory note, term loan agreement on 18. 1. 1983 agreed to repay the loan in 10 half yearly instalments together with interest at 12. 5% p. a. The second defendant executed a letter of guarantee on 18. 1. 1983 itself and that the first defendant has also mortgaged the Tractor and Trailor purchased by him after availing the loan by creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds and that the allegation that the first defendant had agreed to repay the loan in seven years and that had agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 12. 5% p. a minimum interest with half yearly rests and as per the varying rate of interest as per the directions of Reserve Bank of India are all false. The first defendant has not executed any demand promissory note or agreement relating to the term loan or any deed of hypothecation on 18. 6. 1983. The documents mentioned in the plaint are fabricated and forged documents. On 18. 1. 1983, the defendants were asked to subscribe their signatures in many printed unfilled forms, the plaintiff might have fabricated and converted those forms into that of seven documents detailed in the plaint. The second defendant has also not executed any deed of guarantee on 18. 6. 1983. The first defendant has not executed any documents created collateral security for the loan availed by him from the plaintiff. The first defendant has not given any immovable property as security for the loan availed from the plaintiff. The first defendant has not created any equitable mortgage with the plaintiff for the loan availed by him. The first defendant has not deposited any document to the plaintiff on 18. 6. 1983. The first defendant has paid the loan borrowed from the plaintiff on 18. 1. 1983 through many instalments and at last on 22. 3. 1994 also paid Rs. 20,000/- under protest with the plaintiff's Bank. The alleged letter of confirmation of liability dated 19. 1. 1984,14. 10. 1985, 23. 8. 1986, 27. 7. 1987,18. 4. 1988,9. 6. 1989. 22. 6. 1991 and 27. 8. 1992 are all false. The first defendant has not executed any document of letter of confirmation of liability for the alleged debt borrowed on 18. 6. 1983. The first defendant has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff on 18. 6. 1983. The accounts produced by the plaintiff are fabricated one , the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest at 14. 5% p. a. After the receipt of the notice, the first defendant approached the plaintiff's Bank Manager and explained the defendants' case and hence the first defendant has not sent any reply. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Considering the regular account maintained by the first defendant with the plaintiff's Bank and taking into consideration, the considerable business conducted by the first defendant and the deposits made by him with the plaintiff in the year 1983, the then Manager of plaintiff's Bank has sanctionend a Tractor loan for the first defendant on production of his registration copy of the sale deed and also the lease deed in favour of the first defendant. On 18. 1. 1983 for a sum of Rs. 1,18,400/- a draft was sent to the company only by the plaintiff. The defendants are repaying the same periodically. On 30. 10. 1990, the plaintiff demanded the first defendant to produce the registration book and Insurance policy for the Tractor. The said request was heeded by the first defendant and he produced the same in the year 1991 before the then Manager of the plaintiff's bank. Later the plaintiff's bank Officials have not returned those documents. In the year 1992, the plaintiff's men seized the Tractor and Trailor and took the same to Erode and when the first defendant requested the plaintiff to return the same. The plaintiff's Bank said that in the account maintained by them for the said loan availed by the first defendant on 18. 1. 1983, there is some discrepancy and they assured to rectify the same. In order to reply to the quarries made by the head office of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's men required the defendant to execute two letters on 22. 6. 1991. Hence the first defendant executed the letters. The plaintiff's men have assured that the Tractor will be returned soon. On 18. 6. 1993 and 5. 7. 1993, the plaintiff's men induced the first defendant to pay the amounts to return the Tractor. The defendants paid the same. But the plaintiff's men failed to keep up their words. Hence there was exchange of words and strained relationship between the plaintiff's men and the defendants. The plaintiff's men threatened to take revenge on the defendants. At last the first defendant was requested by the plaintiff's men to pay Rs. 20,000/ -. The first defendant paid the same under protest on 22. 3. 1994. The plaintiff's men after receiving the same requested the defendant to come after two months for getting approval from the head office for return of the Tractor. But the first defendant has received only suit summons from the Court. The defendant's tractor as on date is worth Rs. 1,75,000/ -. The plaintiff has unlawfully retaining the same. The second defendant is not the necessary party to the suit. There is no cause of action to file the suit. The suit is barred by limitation. The court fee paid on the plaint is in correct. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.