DASS BANK LTD Vs. KALI KUMARI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's appeal and it arises out of a suit for recovery of money to the extent of Rs. 19,999. The suit has been decreed in part by the court below, namely, for Rs. 8,113-5-9 pies and the plaintiff's appeal is directed against the refusal of its claim with regard to the balance, namely, Rs. 11,885-10-3 pies.

(2.) The suit arose under the following circumstances ; The defendant No. 1, who is the husband of defendant No. 2, had an overdraft current account with the plaintiff Bank and was in the habit of faking loans under that account. Defendant No. 2, the wife, appears to have executed a surety bond (Ext. 1), guaranteeing repayment of the dues of defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff Bank in the above account to the extent of Rs. 20,000 and hypothecating for that purpose the properties, described in Annexure 'A' of the present plaint. The plaintiff Bank brought the present suit on the allegation inter alia that the defendant No. 1 was its debtor under the above overdraft account to the tune of about Rs. 60,000. But, in view of the surety bond (Ext. 1), referred to above, and having regard to the fact that no money could be recovered personally from defendant No. 1, the Bank felt obliged to bring the present suit for recovery of Rs. 19,999 only against both the above defendants, claiming, in effect, a charge decree in respect of the above properties.

(3.) The trial court dismissed the suit against defendant No. 1 principally on the ground that the claim against him was barred by limitation and it decreed, the suit against defendant No. 2 to the extent of Rs. 8,113-5-9 pies upon the finding inter alia that, in view of a certain payment, alleged to have been made and accepted by and between the parties, the defendant No. 1's liability in the above account for which defendant No. 2 would be liable under the above surety bond, would be to the extent of that amount. The decree is a charge decree in the preliminary form against the above hypothecated properties. From this decree the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff Bank. The defendant No. 2 has not filed any appeal or cross-objection.