J U D G M E N T

( Judgment of the Court was made by R .SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

The plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 2020 is on appeal.

2.For convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank in the Suit.

3.The Suit was laid by the plaintiff / Bank seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.14,80,219/- with subsequent interest at 14.70% allegedly due on a mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 20.09.2005 created by the defendants to secure a borrowing of a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- made by them for purchase of a Tractor. According to the plaintiff, the loan was advanced on 24.09.2005 and the defendants had agreed to repay the same with interest at 10% per annum in 9 yearly instalments and the repayment was commenced from 24.09.2006. However, the Loan Waiver Scheme was brought in the year 2007 and a portion of the loan which remained unpaid as on 09.07.2008 was waived as per the Scheme introduced by the Central Government for waiver of agricultural loans. Contending that there was a balance of about Rs.2,53,155/- on the said date and the same with accrued interest had swollen to Rs.14,80,219/- the plaintiff sought for recovery of the said amount.

3.1.The Suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the entire loan was waived as per the Scheme and as such, they are not liable to pay any amount. The claim of the Bank that the defendants had executed acknowledgments of debt on 12.08.2008, 05.08.2011, 03.08.2014 and 28.07.2017 was specifically denied and those documents were termed as false and concocted.

3.2.On the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues:

“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled preliminary decree as prayed for?

2.Whether the suit loan was already waived in the year 2008?

3.To what other relief?”

3.3.The Manager of the plaintiff / Bank one Mr.Pradeepraja was examined as P.W.1 and Exs-A.1 to A.19 were marked. First defendant Mr.Sellapillai was examined as D.W.1 and Ex-B.1 was marked. 3.4.Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the entire loan was discharged and as such, the Bank has no claim under the mortgage. Therefore, the Suit was dismissed.

3.5.The learned Trial Judge did not go into the question of the truth or falsity of the documents / acknowledgments of debt which were marked as Exs-A.6 to A.9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the Suit, the plaintiff is on appeal.

4.We have heard Mr.S.Kesavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Avinash Wadhvani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5.Mr.S.Kesavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Bank would vehemently contend that the Trial Court was not right in concluding that the entire debt was discharged. Ex-B.1 is the loan waiver instrument. The learned counsel would submit that what was waived was only the outstanding overdue as on 09.07.2008 i.e., a sum of Rs.,1,60,904/- and the balance was treated as subsisting debt. He also claimed that the defendants had executed Exs-A.6 to A.9 acknowledgments of debt and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the claim of the defendants that the entire loan was waived is incorrect.

6.Contending contra, Mr.Avinash Wadhvani, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that a reading of Ex-B.1 would show that what was waived was the entire debt and not a sum of Rs.1,60,904/- alone as contended by the appellant Bank. He would also pointed out that though a specific plea regarding the validity of the acknowledgments of debt which were marked as Exs-A.6 to A.9 was taken in the written statement, no attempt was made by the Bank to prove them by examining either the persons who had signed as witnesses.

7.We have considered the rival submissions.

8.On the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, the following points arise for determination in this appeal:

(i)Whether Ex-B.1 could be construed as waiver of the entire loan outstanding.

(ii)Whether the appellant Bank has proved the acknowledgments of debt marked as Exs-A.6 to