BAL SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgement/decree dated 27.10.2007 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge Karnal, whereby he dismissed the appeal with costs filed by Bal Singh and Norti Ram against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2006 rendered by the court of learned Additional civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, vide which he passed the preliminary decree with costs in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants Bal Singh and Norti Ram for the recovery of Rs. 5,46,000/- on account of tractor loan along with interest at the rate of 17.25 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till decision. [FACTS]

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this case are that the defendants approached the plaintiff-bank for a term loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- for purchase of tractor and ACC hypothecation limit of Rs. 50,000/- vide application dated 28.10.1996 which was considered and a term loan to the stated extent was sanctioned on 22.11.1996, which the defendant agreed to repay in 18 half monthly yearly equal installments and also offered collateral security of land measuring 77 Kanal 0 Marla as delineated in the plaint. The defendants executed a mortgage deed dated 19.11.1996, agreement for hypothecation dated 22.11.1996. The repayment of loan was to commence from 31.5.1997. On completion of document, the term loan was disbursed by crediting an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- plus margin money of Rs. 46,821/- totaling As. 2,96,821/- in ALT Account No. 17/16/46 besides a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the ACC account on 22.11.1996. The payment of agricultural term loan was made to Messers Karnal Auto Sales, Karnal under authorization and the ACC facility of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the defendants. The defendants took the delivery of tractor and got the same registered in their names. They failed to pay the loan amount as per Schedule and were served with a legal notice dated 2.2.1999 and 21.10.2000 vide which they were called upon to repay the entire loan amount, but to no effect. On these allegations, the suit was filed for the recovery of Rs. 5,46,688/-.

(3.) On appearance the defendants filed their written statement inter-alia pleading that the rate of interest has not been properly charged and is beyond 6 per cent to which the bank is not entitled. However, it was admitted that they had availed the loan from the bank and the same was to be repaid in 18 half Yearly equal installments. They denied that they executed mortgage deed or the hypothecation agreement. It has been alleged that the bank officials obtained their thumb impressions/signature on certain blanks and printed papers by saying that the same were needed for disbursement of the loan. As alleged, copy of the statement of account was not supplied to them.