STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. BAYAKATI LAX MAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Bank of India by its branch at Tadpatri, represented by its Agent......and Principal Officer, is the appellant herein. The appellant filed a suit O.S. No. 15 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate judge, Anantapur, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 39,888-09 Ps., towards the principal and interest due in respect of two loans bearing Nos 12/4 and 13/9 taken by the the lit defendant, one B Buggalah, from the plaintiff-Bank against the pledge of Ware House receipts concerning stocks of groundnut pods issued by the State Ware Housing Corporation and for subsequent interest and for COSTS. The 2nd defendent is the mother of the 1st defendant and was impleaded as a guarantor for the repayment of the amounts borrowed by the 1st defendant The suit was decreed against the 1st defendant for Rs. 34,163-09 Ps, with full costs against htm and dismissed against the 2nd defendant, but without costs.

(2.) This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in so far as the suit is dismissed as against the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is the sole respondent in the appeal but she has not chosen to appear either In person or through counsel and remained cx-parte It may be stated that even the 1st defendant remained exparte in the lower court,

(3.) The facts, giving rise to the suit, are as follows :- The 1st defendant executed two promlssory notes as collateral security In favour of the plaintiff -Bankand borrowed two loans of Rs. 22,500/- and Rs.25,000/- respectlvely. The 2nd defendant executed two letters of guarantee, Exs. A-15 dt. 11-1-1968 and A-16 Dated 14-1-1968, standing guarantee for The amounts borrowed by the 1st defendant The 2nd defendant alone contested the suit denying that she stood as a guarantor or that she wrote the letters, Exs. A.15 and A-16. , She also denied knowledge of the borrowings by the 1st defendant and stated that she was not informed about the pledge of the goods or the loans advanced by the plaintiff-Bank to the 1st defendant. A. plea was also raised that the loans claimed by the plaintiff-Bank were fraudulent transactions and against public policy and that the suit was the result of the 1st defendant's collusion with the plaintiff Bank and the Andhra Pradesh State Ware Housing Corporation, Tadlpatri, She set up a plea that the letters, Exs.A-15 dated 11-1-1968 and A-16 dated 14-1-'68, were fabricated documents. She, therefore, suted that she was not liable for the said amounts. The learned Subordinate Judge framed as many as nine Issues namely :