T VARALAKSHMI Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against judgment and decree dated 11-9-2002 in O.S.No. 182 of 1996 on the file of First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The mother of the fourth defendant in the suit filed this appeal after obtaining leave of this Court as per orders dated 25-3-2003 in C.M.P. No. 21782 of 2002. In the course of this judgment parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in, the original suit.

(2.) The Plaintiff-Bank filed the suit seeking a preliminary decree for a sum of Rs. 4,80,81l-42Ps. with future interest and costs against four defendants on the following averments in the plaint. The first defendant is a proprietary concern. The second defendant is its proprietor. On 5-2-1987 the bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 25,000/- to second defendant and obtained a pronote from defendants 1 and 2. The third defendant gave guarantee for the discharge of the said debt by defendants 1 and 2. Subsequently loan amount limit was raised to Rs. 50,000.00. Defendants 1 and 2 produced guarantors. Again, the loan limit was raised to Rs. 75,000.00. Defendants 1 and 2 executed fresh documents. Second defendant mortgaged the house of fourth defendant and the loan limit was raised to Rs. 1,50,000/- on 1-8-1990. Second defendant produced fourth defendant as guarantor for Rs. 2,00,000/- on 1-8-1990. Fourth defendant executed guarantee deed and deposited his title deed of house property on 21-8-1990.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement disputing their liability on the ground, that there are discrepancies in the accounts maintained by the bank. Third defendant filed a written statement taking the plea that he stood as guarantor for Rs. 25,000/- only and subsequently, without his knowledge and consent, the loan limit was raised. He denied his liability to discharge the suit debt. He also pleaded that one Smt. Sudhakshnadevi gave collateral security for discharge of debt incurred by defendants 1 and 2 and she is a proper and necessary party to the suit. Fourth defendant filed written statement pleading that he was a minor as on 1-8-90, he does not know about the loans obtained by second defendant and he never deposited title deed of his property in the plaintiff-Bank. He also pleaded that his affidavit is forged. He also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.