DECREE

DTD:30.04.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO.138/2013 ON THE

FILE OF THE 3^RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DAVANAGERE AND ETC.,

THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by the defendants. The

1^st defendant is the son of 2^nd defendant. Both of them

are doctors by profession.

The respondent is the brother-in-law of 2^nd

appellant. The case of the brother-in-law was that the

1^st appellant had taken a loan for pursuing his MBBS

course and to the said loan, the 2^nd appellant i.e., his

3

father and Smt. Rekha (the respondent9s wife) had

stood as sureties.

It was his case that even after the

1^st appellant had completed his MBBS course and also

his post graduation course, he had not discharged the

loan and consequently, the Bank had initiated a suit

for recovery for a sum of Rs.4,87,605/- against both

the appellants as well as his wife Smt. Rekha. In the

said

suit,

the

appellants

herein

had

entered

appearance through the counsel, but did not show any

interest to discharge their liability.

3.

It was stated that the respondent in order

to safeguard his wife9s property that had been pledged

as a collateral to the loan, proceeded to settle the

claim of the Bank and despite the fact that his wife

was missing from the year 2008, he proceeded to

discharge the total outstanding of Rs.4,25,000/- on

28.02.2012 under a <One Time Settlement= Scheme

4

offered by the Bank. It was stated that after the said

amount was repaid, the documents were also obtained

from the Bank. It was stated that since the

respondent had repaid the loan on behalf of the

appellants, he was entitled to recover the said sum

from the defendants who had availed the loan.

4.

This suit was contested by the appellants.

It was admitted by them that the 1^st appellant had

availed an educational loan from the Bank. It was also

admitted that the property standing in the name of

respondent9s wife i.e., Smt. Rekha had also been

mortgaged as a collateral.

5.

The appellants took the plea that the loan

amount had not been repaid by the respondent. It

was their specific assertion that they had paid the

entire loan amount to Smt. Rekha in the month of

October, 2010 for discharging the outstanding debt to

the Bank and they were, therefore, not due any

5

amount to the Bank. It was contended that the

respondent was in no way related to the loan

transaction and the property that was pledged was the

exclusive property of his wife i.e., Smt. Rekha and he

could not, therefore, possess any locus standi to file

the suit for recovery of money alleged to have been

paid by him.

6.

The Trial Court, on consideration of the

evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the

respondent9s wife had in fact stood as surety for the

educational loan availed by the 1^st appellant and she

had also deposited her title deeds as collateral to the

said loan. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion

that

the

bank

loan

was

discharged

by

the

plaintiff/respondent by paying a sum of Rs.4,25,000/-.

7.

The Trial Court held that the assertion of

the appellants that the suit was bad for non-joinder of

necessary

parties

and

the

assertion

that

the

6

respondent has no locus standi to file the suit was

without any substance. The Trial Court, accordingly,

decreed

the

suit

and

directed

payment

of

Rs.4,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per

annum from 28.02.2012 till its realization.

8.

Being aggrieved, the defendants/appellants

preferred

an

appeal.

The

Appellate

Court

on

re-appreciation of the entire evidence concurred with

the findings recorded by the Trial Court. It also found

that the evidence on record clearly established that

the respondent herein had discharged the entire loan

by paying a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- and this was done

in order to safeguard the property which was standing

in the name of his wife, which had been mortgaged to

the Bank. The Appellate Court found that the defence

taken