Advocates:
['M/S K JAGANNADHA RAO', '', 'UMESH RAO', 'M/S K CHANDU SURANJAN', '', 'N MUTHUKUMARAN', 'FOR SOLE RESPT']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.02.2020

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

A.S.No.140 of 2012

and

M.P.No.1 of 2012

K.Sundar

...Appellant/Defendant

Vs.

Indian Bank,

Egmore Branch,

Rep. by its Asst. General Manager,

Somayajee,

No.8, Sait Colony,

Egmore,

Chennai - 600008.

...Respondent/Plaintiff

Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC to set aside

the Decree and Judgment dated 31.08.2009 made in

O.S.No.8127/1996 on the file of Additional District and

Sessions Judge, II Fast Tract Court, Chennai and allow the

Appeal herein.

For Appellant

: Mr.K.Umesh Rao

For Respondent : Mr.K.Chandu Suranjan

JUDGEMENT

The Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgement and Decree

dated 31.08.2009 passed in O.S.No.8127 of 1996. The defendant

is the appellant in the Appeal Suit and the

respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery for a sum

of Rs.5,35,797/- together with interest at 17.5% p.a. from the

date of plaint till the date of realisation with quarterly

rests and for costs.

2.The facts in nutshell in the plaint are that the

defendant had approached the plaintiff's Bank and borrowed a

sum of Rs.3,40,774/- on 22.05.1990 as vehicle loan for the

purchase of two Ambassador tourist Taxis and executed Sanction

Ticket, agreeing to repay the same with 48 monthly

installments with interest at 8% p.a. He also executed an

agreement of Hypothecation, hypothecating the 2 tourist cars

bearing Reg.Nos.TN-01-A-9739 and TN-01-A-9741 and made

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

endorsements on the R.C. books to and in favour of the

plaintiff on 13.06.1990. The defendant has acknowledged his

liability on 31.03.1993 by execution of acknowledgment of

debts for Rs.3,03,517.92/- indebtedness as on 31.12.1992. The

defendant was a defaulter and was irregular in repayment of

monthly dues. Thus, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit

for recovery of the loan amount.

3.The respondent filed a written statement denying the

allegations set out in the plaint, by stating that the

plaintiff did not produce a copy of the statement of account,

in respect of the amount alleged to have been due by the

defendant and the plaintiff did not give credit to all the

payments made by the defendant. Hence, the contended that the

suit claim itself is barred by limitation.

4.An additional written statement was filed by the

respondent stating that the loan sanctioned to the defendant

was not pleaded in the plaint and the plaint proceeds only on

the basis that the defendant availed loan in his individual

capacity for the purchase of two tourist cars. The defendant

has availed loan under TADCO scheme implemented by the State

of Tamil Nadu. The purpose of the said scheme is to benefit

the down trodden schedule caste people. As per TADCO scheme,

the Government also contributed Rs.1 lakh for the purchase of

the 2 tourist cars. The plaintiff Bank sanctioned

Rs.3,40,774/- on 22.05.1990 under vehicle loan is absolutely a

false statement. It is contended that the TADCO loan was

obtained by the defendant and the TADCO subsequently waived

the loan and in this regard, the Government also issued G.O.

(Ms)No.41, dated 09.04.2010 Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare

(SCP) Department. When the Government issued waiver of loan

sanctioned through Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development

Corporation Limited under non-farm sector enterprises

amounting to Rs.83 Crores, the respondent Indian Bank cannot

institute a suit to recover the entire loan amount.

5.The Trial Court framed the issues as to whether the

plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim, whether the plaintiff

is entitled to interest at 17.5% p.a., whether the suit is

barred by limitation, whether the suit claim is correct,

whether the plaintiff is entitled to seize the vehicles and

sell it and to what other relief.

6.The Trial Court basically proceeded