ANAND SAWRUP DATA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3. 6. 1995 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Rewari who accepted the first appeal of the appellant-Bank by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13. 2. 1993 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Glass, Rewari, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-Bank. The first appellate Court granted a money decree for a sum of Rs. 24,620. 16 with costs alongwith future interest at the rate of 15% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment.

(2.) BRIEF fact of the case are that New Bank of India, Qutabpur Branch, Rewari, filed a money suit for the recovery of Rs. 24,620. 16 alleging that on 23. 11. 1979 defendant No. 1 M/s. Koolko Industries, Bawal Chowk, Rewari, approached the Outabpur Branch of the plaintiff-Bank for the grant of credit facility. The plaintiff-bank accepted the proposal and offered the grant of loan to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- on compound interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the guarantee furnished by defendants Nos. 2 to 4. In pursuance of the loan defendant No. 1 executed an agreement deed, hypothecation of goods deed, and demand pronote in favour of the plaintiff Bank on 23. 11. 1979. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 had executed a letter of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff-Bank for the said loan. The plaintiff-Bank alleges that on the basis of the facility granted to defendant No. l, loan was advanced. A sum of Rs. 24,620. 16 is due to the Bank from the defendants who are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount and the interest as on 13. 12. 1984. The defendants were called upon to pay the amount but to no effect. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff-Bank that defendant No. 1 acknowledged the liability on 1. 7. 1980, 18. 7. 1980, 1. 1. 1981 and 18. 3. 1982. In spite of the acknowledgement of the payment made by the plaintiff-Bank the defendants did not pay the amount.

(3.) MATERIAL point for determination in this appeal is whether the execution of the loan documents relied upon by the Bank have been proved according to law or not. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff mainly on the ground that Shri R. K. Gupta (P. W. 2), who appeared on behalf of the Bank in order to prove the loan documents, has nowhere stated in his statement that before the executant put his signatures on the documents, the documents were written out, read over and understood by him. The trial Court further held that putting signatures/thumb impression in a mechanical manner on a document does not prove the execution until or unless the party was conscious about the nature and implications of his acts. The learned first appellate Court did not agree with the aforesaid reasons advanced by the learned trial Court and held as follows;". . . . It is no doubt true that the execution means putting signatures or thumb impression over it by the executant after it is written out, read over and understood by him. In the present case all the documents of the bank which had been executed by the defendants were in the printed forms and so they had been obviously written out and it would be presumed by that had been read over or understood by them before they had put their signature.