This is an unsuccessful defendant’s second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2011 made in R A No.35/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Badami, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2009 made in O.S. No.225/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Badami, decreeing the suit for recovery of money.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S.No.225/1999 against the present appellant-defendant for recovery of Rs.20,355/- along with interest @ 13.5% p.a. along with future interest contending that one Lalsab S/o. Modinasab Awati, resident of Katageri Village had approached the plaintiff bank on 10.11.1998 for financial help for his business, introducing the present defendant as guarantor/co-obligant to get the loan. Accordingly the plaintiff-Bank has sanctioned the loan on 23.11.1998 to an extent of Rs.25,000/- to the said Lalasab with repayment schedule to repay the same at a rate of Rs.690/with 35 installments commencing from 23.12.1998. According to the Bank, the loan was sanctioned to the above said Lalsab Awati in two installments i.e., on 23.11.1998 of Rs.15,000/and on 24.11.1998 of Rs.10,000/in loan account No.18/1998 which stood in the name of the above said borrower. According to the plaintiff – Bank, the said borrower was expired leaving behind no legal heirs. And further stated in the plaint that, as either the main borrower or the present defendant as a guarantor paid the dues to the Bank thereby the defendant became defaulter in payment of the said borrowed amount. The plaintiff–Bank has issued notice on 05.06.1999 to the present defendant to repay the outstanding balance towards the above said loan availed. As the defendant failed to comply in terms of the said legal notice as the main borrower died the suit came to be initiated against the present defendant, who is the guarantor for the recovery of the above said dues, as the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay as his guarantee-ship is coexisted and therefore filed the suit.

4. The appellant – defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement and denied all the plaint averments and contended that suit summons was served on his mother and in order to prove that he is not the Muttappa S/o. Vittappa and his name is called as Yamanappa Vittappa Maharajanavar and he has at no point of time became the signatory to the plaintiff-Bank towards the loan availed by the deceased Lalsab Awati. The plaintiff-Bank came up with false suit against them for recovery of the money which the present defendant is not at all concerned and he has further stated that the main borrower died intestate and without any legal heirs and he left one property situated at Katageri Village bearing VPC No.671/643 and on which the bank has created the charge and therefore the Bank is at liberty to recover the said amount by putting the said property on auction sale. Hence the Bank has no locus standi to file a suit against the defendant etc., therefore sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issue :-

“1. Whether the plaintiff-Bank proves that he is entitled to recover the suit amount with interest at the rate of 13.5% p.a. with quarterly rests from the defendant?

2. Whether the defendant proves that suit of the plaintiff-Bank is barred by limitation?

3. If so, what order or decree?

Additional-Issue:

1. Whether the defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff is hit by the non-joinder of the necessary party i.e., the administrator General or an officer of the Court or such other person to represent the estate of the deceased person for the purpose of the suit?”

6. In order to establish the plaintiff’s case its Manager examined PW1 and witness PW2- who was the earlier Manager when the transaction took place between the plaintiff and def