Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Smt. Usha Jaiswal W/o. Late Gopal Jaiswal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State Bank of India & Ors. - Respondents
F.A. No.16 of 2001
Decided On : 21-03-2018
For the Appellants :Ms. Srija Choudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, Advocates.
Headnote:
Civil Laws – Decreetal Amount – Defendants-appellants have preferred this First Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge IX, Ranchi in Mortgage Title Suit by which the learned court below decreed the suit on contest against all the three defendants with cost and the defendants were directed to pay the decreetal amount along with compound interest and costs of the suit within two months from the date of that order failing which the plaintiff bank shall be entitled to the recovery of the said amount from the defendants either jointly or severally in accordance with law by applying for a final decree as per law. – Held, Court find that they have not produced any document in support of their case of repayment of portion of the loan amount withdrawn by Gopal Jaiswal. – It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State Bank of India vs. Yumnam Gouramani Singh reported in AIR 1994 SC 1644 that If the entries on the books of account produced by bank are corroborated by Branch Manager and other bank officials, it is sufficient proof of loan transaction. – So, in this case the Ext. 5 being the entries in the books of account of the plaintiff bank having been corroborated by the bank officials being P.W.1 and P.W.5 the same is a sufficient proof of the loan transaction in the loan account. – Further though the defendants in the initial part of their written statement denied the loan but in the later part as well as during evidence admitted the loan. – Besides the extract of the books of account the plaintiff-bank has also proved several loan documents executed by the defendants, which remained unchallenged by the defendants. – The Ext. 10 which is the letter written by the defendant No.2 acknowledging the equitable mortgage created by him by way of collateral security for the loan amount taken by the loanee Gopal Jaiswal and he also executed the letter of guarantee which has also been proved by the plaintiff-bank. – So, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, Court have no hesitation in holding when the evidence put forth by the plaintiff-bank is sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff-bank regarding the disbursal of the loan, inheritance of the property of loanee by the defendants besides the defendant No.1 and 2 being guarantors of the said loan amount. – Court is of the opinion that the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant making them liable jointly and severally for the suit amount and for passing a preliminary decree for sale of the mortgaged property. – Thus, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned court below is confirmed and this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances, without any cost. – Appeal Dismissed
Heard the parties.
2. The defendants-appellants have preferred this First Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2000 passed by the learned Sub Judge IX, Ranchi in Mortgage Title Suit No.84 of 1994 / 22 of 2000 by which the learned court below decreed the suit on contest against all the three defendants with cost and the defendants were directed to pay the decreetal amount along with compound interest and costs of the suit within two months from the date of that order failing which the plaintiff bank shall be entitled to the recovery of the said amount from the defendants either jointly or severally in accordance with law by applying for a final decree as per law.
3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the deceased borrower namely Gopal Jaiswal applied for a loan from the plaintiff-bank for purchase of a truck in his name. The plaintiff bank sanctioned a term loan facility for a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- to Gopal Jaiswal and thereafter Gopal Jaiswal executed necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank and withdrew the loan amount and purchased a truck. The said truck thus purchased, was registered with the D.T.O., Ranchi bearing registration No. BIN 9972 and there was endorsement that the vehicle was financed by plaintiff-bank. The defendant Nos.1, and 2 stood as guarantors for the said loan and also executed documents in favour of the plaintiff for securing the loan. The original loanee Gopal Jaiswal died on 09.04.1993 and the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 being the only survivors of the deceased namely Gopal Jaiswal, inherited all the properties and the estate of Gopal Jaiswal. All the defendants were also in joint possession of the said truck purchased by Gopal Jaiswal. Gopal Jaiswal defaulted in making payment to the bank as promised and after being made repeated requests Gopal Jaiswal made some deposits but did not regularize the account completely but after the death of Gopal Jaiswal no repayment was made in respect of said loan. Gopal Jaiswal also deposited the receipts of collateral security for the loan and also acknowledged the loan. It is also the case of the plaintiff-bank that the truck so purchased by Gopal Jaiswal using the loan amount, had been sent away from Ranchi by defendants for avoiding seizure thereof. Further the case of the plaintiff is that in spite of repeated requests, the defendants did not liquidate the loan and as such the plaintiff called back the amount outstanding and intimated the defendants through its lawyer by sending notice dated 26.11.1993 asking the defendants to pay its entire dues within a month. But even after the notice, the defendants failed to liquidate the loan which necessitated in filing of this suit claiming that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the said dues being the successors in interest of original borrower Gopal Jaiswal as well as defendant Nos.1 and 2 were additionally liable being the guarantors for the loan. The last deposit made by Gopal Jaiswal in the loan account was on 23.03.1993 and the outstanding balance in the loan amount as on 23.05.1994 was Rs.2,58,369.25/-. The suit was initially decreed ex parte on 20.07.1996 but subsequently the ex parte order was set aside on 24.11.1998 and the defendants filed their written statement.
4. The case of the defendants on the other hand is that the suit is false, frivolous, not maintainable, barred by principles of waiver, estoppel acquiescence and principles of limitation. The defendants also pleaded that the plaintiff has no cause of action for the suit. The defendants further pleaded that late Gopal Jaiswal did not apply for any loan nor he was granted any loan. They denied the execution of loan documents by late Gopal Jaiswal as borrower and by defendant Nos.1 and 2 are guarantors. They also denied that the defendant No.2 mortgaged the land with the plaintiff by depositing title deed as collateral security. The defendants also took the plea that late Gopal Jaiswal
