VED PARKASH SAROGI Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants No. 3 to 6 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,01,616.90 paise filed by respondent No. 1 herein.

(2.) Defendant No. 2 Ajit Singh sought loan from the plaintiff bank on 13.12.1966. The plaintiff bank agreed to grant certain credit facilities and thereafter defendant Nos. 1 and 2 received a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on 24.1.1967. The said defendants also availed cash credit facility against the stock from Patel Nagar Branch of the bank from 27.1.1967 and a cash credit facility against bills w.e.f. 11.1.1967. Thus, three different accounts regarding 3 facilities were opened by defendants No. 1 and 2 at Patel Nagar Branch of the plaintiff bank. Said defendants were granted loan on their offering security of immovable property by deposit of title deeds. The documents were deposited with the plaintiff bank with intent to create a security on the said immovable property for the repayment of the loan sanctioned by the plaintiff bank. A memorandum to that effect was also executed by defendant No. 2 Ajit Singh on 24.1.1967. The accounts of defendants No. 1 and 2 were subsequently transferred to Kirti Nagar Branch of the plaintiff bank where the defendants No. 1 and 2 further availed cash credit facilities by hypothecation of stock to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- and also executed additional documents, but the defendants No. 1 and 2 failed to honour their commitments and to repay the amount due in their respective accounts.

(3.) It was further pointed out that a registered lease deed dated 30.1.1970 was executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 in contravention of the terms of agreement between defendants No. 1 and 2 and the plaintiff bank. The said defendants also executed a registered sale deed dated 30.1.1970 in favour of defendant No. 4. The lease hold rights were further sold by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. 5 on 21.8.1970 whereas defendant No. 4 executed sale deed in respect of the said land in favour of defendant No. 6. It is, thus, pleaded that the plaintiff bank has charge on the said property of defendants No. 1 and 2 and the transactions of lease and sale would not effect the rights of the Bank.