The main legal point established is that a suit for recovery of a loan secured by a charge on immovable property is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963 only if the recovery is sought against the charged properties.

( 1 ) WHEN this second appeal came up for admission before this Court on 8-8-1991, this Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law formulated as under:"whether a suit for recovery of loan vvhich is secured by creation of registered charge on the property of debtor, is governed by article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if the recovery is based on the charged properties. "

( 2 ) IN order to deal with the controversy in this second appeal as well as the substantial question of law involved therein, it is necessary to narrate a few facts which give rise to the substantial question of law, in this second appeal. The appellant-State Bank of India is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 16,179. 49 against the respondents-defendants. The plaintiff pleaded that defendant No. l, namely Ramkrishna approached the plaintiff-Bank and requested for advancement of loan for agricultural development purposes with the limit of rs. 8,000/ -. The advance was to be guaranteed as to its repayment by two solvent sureties. Defendants No. 2 and 3 namely; Himmatrao and Janrao were the guarantors for the amount advanced to defendant No. l. and therefore, according to the plaintiff, defendants No. 1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to repay the dues to the Bank. The advance was to carry interest @ 13. 5% per annum. It was then pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant No. l executed an agreement of hypothecation in favour of the plaintiff on 13-7-1978. Defendants No. 2 and 3 also executed a deed of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff-Bank on the same day. Defendant No. l further executed a declaration cum undertaking under Section 5 (1) of the Act No. V of 1975 thereby creating a charge on his immovable property. It was the case of the plaintiff that the property mentioned in the declaration had been registered with the Sub-Registrar camp at amravati on 01-8-1977 and was subject to charge for the amount outstanding on account of loan. It is the case of the plaintiff that on completion of all the requirements and on execution of the aforesaid documents, defendant No. l was allowed to avail the advance and accordingly he had withdrawn the total amount of sanctioned limit. The plaintiff also filed along with the plaint a ledger extract of loan account which gave details of the disbursement of the loan, interest and other charges. The advance was repayable, according to the plaintiff by March, 1979. That, since the defendants did not repay as per the schedule and had committed defaults, the plaintiff served a notice dated 18-4-1983 on the defendants. That, since the defendants failed to comply with the notice, the plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of amount which came to be registered as regular civil suit no. 407 of 1983. In the plaint it was further mentioned that the cause of action for the suit arose initially on 13-7-1978 when the documents were executed and the loan was advanced and in view of the charge on the immovable property, the suit was filed within prescribed period of limitation of 12 years in view of Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed an amount of rs. 16,179. 49 ps. with future interest from the defendants. The defendants filed joint written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. The defendants denied that defendant No. l approached the plaintiff-Bank for the loan and that a limit of Rs. 8,000/- was granted. The defendants then denied that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as sureties/guarantors for the amount advanced to defendant No. 1. Almost every pleading in the plaint was denied by the defendants. It was submitted in para 10 of the written statement that defendant No. l approached plaintiff-Bank for a loan for development of agricultural land and the plaintiff-Bank, from time to time advanced the loan of Rs. 8,000/- to the defendant. It is further stated in paragraph 10 that the interest charged by the plaintiff was excessive and no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document