JUDGMENT - R.G. VAIDYANATHA, J. :---This is a suit filed by Union Bank of India against the defendants for recovery of money. The defendants have filed written statement. Issues have been framed. One witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and plaintiff's case was closed. One witness was examined on behalf of the defendants. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both sides.

2.The plaintiff's case is as follows :---

The Union Bank of India, which is a Nationalised Bank. The first defendant is a partnership firm. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who are father and son are the partners of the first defendant firm. It is stated that the defendants had obtained term loan facility since 1975 to the extent of Rs. 65,000/-. The defendants have executed a promissory note dated 10th April, 1978 and Hypothecation Agreement of the same date. The defendants have availed that facility. The amount lent to the defendants on different dates have been debited to their accounts. It is further stated that at the same time in April, 1978 the defendants availed Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Facility up to a limit of Rs. 20,000/- and executed a promissory note dated 10th April, 1978 and agreement of hypothecation of the same date. Hence, the suit is filed for the recovery of Rs. 78,962,80 ps. in respect of the term loan account and Rs. 31,530.62 ps in respect of Cash Credit Facility.

The defence is as follows :---

It is stated that the suit is not maintainable. The suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties. The execution of the suit documents is denied. Signatures of Defendants Nos. 2 3 were taken on blank forms and the columns have been subsequently filled up. Correct accounts are not disclosed in the plaint. The amount claimed in the plaint is not admitted. That the demand notice issued by the plaintiff-Bank has been duly replied. The Hypothecation deed is not enforceable. That defendants deny their liability to pay the amount claimed in the suit. That defendants have given two Insurance Polices to the plaintiff. The Plaintiff has to give credit to the amount realised from the LIC Policies. The defendants have also filed additional written Statement stating that signature of stranger appears on the promissory note dated 10-4-1978, that the blanks have been filled up subsequently. Defendants Nos. 2 3 have signed on blank forms. The suit is barred by limitation. The personal account of the second defendant cannot be transferred to the account of the firm. The entries in the account extract are incorrect. Account Books are not properly written. The stamp of the firm is forged on the agreement. The plaintiff has suppressed the previous account. Hence, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.

3.On the above pleadings, the following issues are framed.

ISSUES

1.Whether the plaintiff proves that the Defendants or any one of them were granted a Term Loan Facility in 1975 which was continued in 1978 whereunder the Defendants were lent various amounts by the plaintiff as mentioned in paragraphs 3 4 of the plaint ?

2.Whether the plaintiff proves that the Defendants or any one of them were granted a Cash Credit Facility in 1975 which was continued in 1978 whereunder the Defendants were lent various amounts by the plaintiff as mentioned in paragraphs 3, 7 and 8 of the plaint ?

3.Whether the plaintiff proves that there is due and payable by the Defendants to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 78,962,80 ps with further interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum with half yearly rests from the date of the filing of the suit till payment and/or realisation together with costs charges and expenses for the said period under the Term Loan Facility as stated in paragraph 6 of the plaint and as prayed for in prayer (a) of the plaint.

4.Whether the plaintiff proves that there is due and payable by the Defendants to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 78,962,80 ps with further interest thereon at the rate of 17% p.a. with half yearly res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document