The requirement of 'letters of administration' for claiming back pledged gold ornaments after the death of the pledgor and the liability of the plaintiffs to pay interest.

K. J. ROHEE, J.

( 1 ) THE Appellant-original defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the bank) preferred this appeal against the judgment of the District Judge, Yavatmal in regular Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1985 decided on 30th March, 1988 directing the Bank to return the gold ornaments to the respondents i. e. original plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) on payment of the principal amount with interest for three months namely june, 1982 to August, 1982 by setting aside the judgment of the Civil Judge, Junior division, Wani dismissing Regular Civil Suit no. 168 of 1983 on 27th March, 1985.

( 2 ) FOR the purposes of this second appeal the facts which are not in dispute are that, on 14-4-1979 one Gopalrao Deshmukh obtained loan from the Bank by pledging gold ornaments. Account Nos. 27/18 and 27/19 were operated. On the same day Gopalrao deshmukh gave a declaration in writing (Exh. 21) that the gold ornaments belonged to him and no other person has any claim against them. On 14-7-1979 Gopalrao Deshmukh also executed a promissory note in favour of the Bank as a security for the loan. On 8-2- 1982 Gopalrao Deshmukh died leaving behind him his widow (plaintiff No. 1), son (plaintiff no. 2) and daughters (plaintiff No. 3 and defendant No. 2 ).

( 3 ) AFTER the death of Gopalrao deshmukh, his widow through her son enquired with the Bank about the amount of outstanding loan against her deceased husband. On 4-8-1982 and 11-8-1982 the bank gave particulars of the gold loan and crop loan amounting to Rs. 34,031. 37 ps. including interest up to 31-5-1982. The plaintiffs showed willingness to repay the loan and to redeem the ornaments. However the bank insisted for submission of "letters of administration". Hence on 28-9-1983 suit for mandatory injunction was instituted against the bank requiring the Bank to accept the amount of loan advanced with interest as on 31-8- 1982 and to deliver the gold ornaments to any of the plaintiffs.

( 4 ) THE Bank resisted the claim. According to the Bank it recognizes the right of the plaintiffs to redeem the gold ornaments provided they prove their right to the ornaments. Since the plaintiffs did not produce any documentary evidence about their right to redeem the ornaments, the Bank refused to return the ornaments to the plaintiffs. According to the Bank the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) THE learned Trial Judge framed necessary issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Trial Judge held that the plaintiffs proved that the pledged ornaments were the property of the co-parcenary. The learned Trial Judge, however, held that "letters of Administration" were necessary for claiming the ornaments and in the absence of "letters of Administration" the plaintiffs were not entitled for return of the gold ornaments. The learned Trial Judge, therefore, dismissed the suit.

( 6 ) WHILE deciding the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs the appellate court held that the "letters of Administration" were not necessary for claiming back the gold ornaments. The appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court and directed the Bank to return the ornaments on payment of loan and interest to the plaintiffs or any person authorised by them on execution of his security bond to the satisfaction of the Bank.

( 7 ) THE Bank preferred Second appeal No. 88 of 1987 against the judgment of the appellate court. By judgment dated 20-8-1987 this Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the appellate court and remanded the case to the appellate court directing it to decide the appeal by mentioning the amount of loan, the rate of interest, the period for which interest is payable and the quantum of interest to be paid by the plaintiffs.

( 8 ) AFTER remand the appellate court by its judgment dated 30-3-1988 allowed the appeal and held that "letters of administration" were not necessary