DODLA BHASKAR RAO Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed under Section 115 read with Section 102, Civil Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C.'), the defendant has assailed the decision of the lower appellate Court by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-opposite party was allowed and the conditional decree passed by the trial Court was modified.

(2.) The factual backdrop of the case over which there is no controversy is as follows: The petitioner had availed a gold loan of Rs.900/- from the State Bank of India, Kasipur Branch (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') on 24-10-83 securing the same by executing a demand promissory note and by pledging gold ornaments with gross weight of 7.7 grains and net weight of 7 grains and stipulating therein to repay the loan with interest at the rate of 11.5% per annum. The Bank instituted the suit, M.S. No.102 of 1986, in the Court of the Munsif, Rayagada for realisation of Rs.1261.40, pendente lite and future interest thereon at the contractual rate of 11.5%per annum and cost; alleging, inter alia, that the defendant had defaulted in payment of the dues of the Bank. The defendant contested the suit taking the pleas, inter alia, that he had availed the loan from the Bank as alleged; he was ready and willing to repay the dues of the bank and to get back his gold ornaments; he had indeed, approached the officials of the Bank on several times for that purpose, but they refused to return the gold ornaments falsely alleging that the ornaments pledged by him (defendant) were not of gold and were spurious. The defendant categorically denied the assertion made by the plaintiff that after taking the loan he had executed a document on 27-2-85 accepting the position that the articles pledged by him were not gold ornaments and they were spurious ones.

(3.) Considering the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues to the effect that whether the gold mortgaged by the defendant with the plaintiff Bank is pure, and whether the defendant executed a document in the nature of a letter dated 27-2-85 (Ex. 3) in favour of the plaintiff-bank , admitting therein that the gold mortgaged was not pure?