Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 2746
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
The State Bank of India, Represented by its Chief Manager, Nagapattinam - Appellant
Versus
R. Krishnakumar - Respondent
S.A. No. 987 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 02-12-2021
For the Petitioner:M.L. Ganesh, Advocate.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Appellant/Bank has filed a suit, before District Munsif Court for recovery of money due from respondent/defendant in respect of agricultural loan of Rs.60,000/- availed by respondent/defendant and agreeing for same, respondent/defendant has executed a mortgage deed by depositing title deeds and loan has been acknowledged and renewed in year 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003 & 2005 and hence, balance amount of Rs.52,989/- has to be paid by defendant - Whether First Appellate Court is right in overruling provision of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 announced by Government - Whether First Appellate Court is justified in reversing judgment and decree of Lower Court just because respondent had expressed and made a statement that he is ready and willing to pay balance amount after Appellant Bank given waiver amount in terms of said scheme – Held, Court finds that a farmer will be given waiver 25% of eligible amount subject to condition that former has made payment of 75% of outstanding amount - In other words, nature of loan of respondent/defendant, who eligible for scheme to avail benefit, he could have paid 75% of outstanding due and mere readiness expressed by respondent/defendant to pay amount is not sufficient enough to claim benefits under said scheme - Trial Court has rightly ordered that respondent/defendant is liable to pay said amount and hence, finding rendered by Trial Court is restored and accordingly, judgment and decree passed by Trial Court is confirmed and Judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court is set aside - Hence, I find that both substantial questions of law framed above are in favour of appellant/plaintiff - Second Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in A.S.No.8 of 2012, dated 25.06.2014 reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.323 of 2005, by the learned District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, dated 10.08.2011.)
1. The plaintiff/State Bank of India is the appellant herein.
2. This Second Appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in A.S.No.8 of 2012, dated 25.06.2014, wherein, the learned Judge has reversed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.323 of 2005, by the learned District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, dated 10.08.2011.
3. Brief facts of the case:
(a) The appellant/Bank has filed a suit in O.S.No.323 of 2005, before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam for recovery of money due from the respondent/defendant in respect of agricultural loan of Rs.60,000/- availed by the respondent/defendant on 30.08.1995 and agreeing for the same, the respondent/defendant has executed a mortgage deed by depositing the title deeds and the loan has been acknowledged and renewed in the year 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003 & 2005 and hence, the balance amount of Rs.52,989/- has to be paid by the defendant.
(b). In the written statement filed by the respondent/defendant, he has pleaded that in view of the waiver Scheme issued by the Government under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, he is entitled for waiver, besides he made excess payment of amount of Rs.28,000/-.
(c). Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff/Bank PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked and on behalf of the defendants DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B18 were marked and also marked the judgment copy passed by this Court in CRP(PD) No. 4486 of 2010.
(d). After perusing the records, the Trial Court has decreed the suit. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant has preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.8 of 2012, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam and by an order dated 25.06.2014, the learned Judge has allowed the appeal on the ground that the defendant is entitled for 25% waiver under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 and directed the respondent/defendant to pay the balance amount of Rs.28,000/- within a period of two months from 25.04.2014 to the Bank as against the outstanding loan amount of Rs.52,989/- together with interest at 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. The said finding is under challenge by the appellant/plaintiff’s Bank by way of Second Appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials placed on record.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant following substantial questions of law are framed:
“1. Whether the First Appellate Court is right in overruling the provision of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 announced by the Government.
2. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Lower Court just because the respondent had expressed and made a statement that he is ready and willing to pay the balance amount after the Appellant Bank given waiver amount in terms of the said scheme?”
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in order to avail benefit of the said scheme viz., Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, the respondent/defendant ought to have paid 75% of the loan amount and further he would contend that under Ex.B10/the letter sent by the appellant/plaintiff’s Bank to the respondent /defendant, the entitlement of the respondent/defendant was admitted subject to the condition that he must pay 75% of the loan amount for the grant the waiver of 25% and under the said document viz., Ex.B10 there is no whisper regarding the entitlement of a person, who is willing to pay 75% of the loan amount.
7. Further, i
