AMARNATH GOEL Vs. AMARNATH GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-bank is the appellant in this appeal. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing O.S.No.277 of 1980, in so far as the second defendant is concerned. The suit was decreed by the learned judge as against the first defendant and it has become final.

(2.) The suit was filed against defendants Nos.1 and 2 who are no other than father and son respectively, for the recovery, of a sum of Rs.3,08,452.74. The basis of the suit, as stated in the plaint, was that the defendants are Abkari contractors, and the first defendant approached the plaintiff-bank for certain facilities for the purpose of the Abkari contract. The plaintiff-bank sanctioned and paid in the first instance a sum of Rs.1,65,000 which is to be repaid with interest at 6% per annum over the bank rate of interest with a minimum of 15% per annum. The first defendant deposited title deeds in respect of the immovable property situated at Hyderabad with plaintiff-bank on 18/09/1976, with an intention to create a mortgage, securing the payment of the loan amount. Subsequently, a memorandum stating that the title deeds were deposited with the bank at an anterior date was executed on 23/09/1976. It was alleged in the plaint that defendants Nos.1 and 2 also executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the loan amount of Rs.1,65,000 with interest as mentioned above. Subsequently, the first defendant , on his request, was granted another loan amount of Rs.31,500 on the same terms and conditions for which both the defendants executed another promissory note on 29/09/1976. In spite of repeated reminders, the loan amount was not repaid and the account was not regularised. It was further mentioned in the plaint that the second defendant is also personally liable to discharge the entire amount payable to the plaintiff-bank in view of the fact that he had executed two promissory notes. Therefore, it is claimed that both the defendants are liable to pay the suit amount and that the suit is liable to be decreed.

(3.) The suit was resisted by both the defendants. A common written statement was filed on behalf of both the defendants. All conceivable pleas were raised which are not necessary to be stated here for the purpose of the disposal of this appeal. The relevant pleas raised in defence by the defendants were that the court had no territorial jurisdiction and that the first defendant did not sign the memorandum regarding the past transaction of mortgage and the defendants signed some printed forms only and that they have not executed any promissory notes. A more significant plea that was raised on behalf of the second defendant was that he was a minor on the date of the suit transactions and hence the suit liability cannot be fastened upon him.