Bangalore District Court
Corporation Bank vs Shivananda G on 2 February, 2026
KABC010191542017
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26).
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2026
Present
Sri Vijaya Kumar Rai, B.Com., LL.B.,
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.5317/2017
Plaintiff: Corporation Bank
A body corporate constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1980)
having its Head Office at Mangaladevi
Temple Road, Mangalore-575 001 and
having among other branches a branch
at Bangalore namely Bangalore City
Branch, No.24, Ground Floor
Kavi Kalidasa Road, Gandhinagar
Bangalore-560 009, represented by its
Chief Manager Sri B.L.N. Swamy
s/o Janardana Rao, aged about 56 years.
(By Sri S.R. Raviprakash, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Mr.Shivananda, G
s/o Gavisiddaiah
Aged about 51 years
2) Smt.D. Bhagyamma
s/o G. Shivananda
Aged about 47 years
Both are r/at No.7, 'D' Grade House
University Quarters, Jnanabhatathi Post
Bangalore-560 056.
(In person)
2 O.S.No.5317/2017
Date of institution of the suit 03.08.2017
Nature of the suit For
recovery of money
Date of the commencement 23.04.2019
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 02.02.2026
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
08 05 29
(Vijaya Kumar Rai)
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of ₹5,33,510/- along with interest at the rate of 12.25% per annum from the date of suit until its realisation.
2. The case of the plaintiff-bank in brief is as hereunder:-
The plaintiff is a banking company. The defendant No.1 has borrowed a loan of ₹5,20,000/- from it on 10.04.2014 and defendant No.2 is co-obligant. The loan was repayable in 180 EMI of ₹5,668/- commencing from 04.09.2014. The defendant No.1 was irregular in payment of the loan and though he had made some payments, it was not made intime and therefore the loan account becomes NPA on 04.04.2015. As on the date of filing of this suit, the principal 3 O.S.No.5317/2017 amount due was Rs.4,08,249/- and the interest due was Rs.1,25,261/- and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the same.
3. Pursuant to the suit summons issued by this Court, the defendants entered appearance in person and filed the written statement. In the written statement filed by the defendants, though they have not denied the availment of the loan, they have disputed the quantum of the liability pleaded by the plaintiff. It is contended by the defendants that the signature of the defendants were taken in the blank papers and even after repayment of huge amount, the plaintiff-bank has not maintained proper accounts and the repayments made by the defendants are not entered in the account statement. It is contended that the subsidy amount payable on the loan are not credited to the loan account and the plaintiff-bank has even filed another suit in O.S.No.897/2018 and thereby two suits are filed for the single loan. They have taken up a contention that they have paid 30 instalments and though the tenure of repayment is still due the plaintiff has filed the false suit.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court has framed the following issues:-
1) Does plaintiff-bank proves that the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,33,510/- with current and future interest at 12.25% per annum? 4 O.S.No.5317/2017
2) Do defendants prove that the plaintiff-bank has not maintained proper accounts and the bank has not taken into account the repayment made by them to their loan account?
3) What order or decree?
5. In support of the case of the plaintiff-bank, initially the previous Manager was examined as PW1 and later he did not turn up and therefore the present Manager is examined as PW2 and Ex.P1 to 5 documents are marked. PW1 is subjected to cross examination by defendant No.1 in person and Ex.D1 to 38 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1 and documents Ex.D.39 to 44 are also marked.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. Findings of this Court on the above issues are as hereunder:
Issue No.1 : Partly in the affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative Issue No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
-: REASONS :-
8. Issue Nos.1 and 2:- The specific case of the plaintiff- bank is that the defendant No.1 being the principal borrower and defendant No.2 being a co-obligant borrowed loan of ₹5,20,000/- on 10.04.2014 and though certain irregular payments were made, 5 O.S.No.5317/2017 there was a due amount of ₹4,08,249/- towards the principal and interest of ₹1,25,261/-. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they have contended that the plaintiff-bank has obtained signatures in the blank papers and instituted two suits for the one loan. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has produced the loan application, statement of account, loan sanction intimation, loan agreement. letter of undertaking and other documents. In the cross-examination of DW1, he has admitted that he has received loan of ₹5,20,000/-, which was agreed to be repaid in 180 EMI of ₹5,668/-. The defendant No.1 has also admitted his signatures in the loan application and other loan agreements. Therefore, the disbursement of loan of ₹5,20,000/- to the defendants is proved.
9. The plaintiff-bank has contended that as on the date of filing of the suit, the due amount was principal amount of ₹4,08,249/- and interest of ₹1,25,261/-. The defence raised by the defendant No.1 is that he has repaid substantial amount which is not taken into consideration. In this regard, he has produced Ex.D1 to 38 counter foils evidencing the payment made by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff towards the loan. In the cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that Ex.D1 to 38 are in respect of the repayment of the loan by the defendants. PW1 has also admitted that apart 6 O.S.No.5317/2017 from Ex.D1 to 38 another amount of ₹2,00,000/- is also paid on 23.01.2024.
10. During the course of arguments, on 16.12.2025, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has produced account statement of the bank. He has also contended that in the written statement itself, the defendants have admitted the due of 150 EMIs. I have heard both the sides at length. On 09.01.2026, in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and defendant No.1, this court has recorded the payment said to be made by the defendants towards the loan along with the date of payment and the exhibits and the amount of payment. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff could not point out the payments so made in Ex.D.1 to 38. The record of proceedings made during the hearing on 09.01.2026 is extracted as hereunder:-
Exhibits Date Amount
Ex.D1 22.01.2015 17,000
Ex.D2 16.02.2016 4,000
Ex.D3 07.05.2016 4,000
Ex.D4 14.06.2016 5,000
Ex.D5 15.04.2016 40,000
Ex.D6 15.09.2016 2,400
Ex.D7 15.09.2016 5,700
Ex.D8 04.07.2016 3,000
Ex.D9 03.11.2016 6,000
Ex.D10 03.11.2016 2,500
Ex.D11 20.04.2017 6,000
7 O.S.No.5317/2017
Ex.D12 25.04.2017 3,000
Ex.D13 01.08.2017 12,000
Ex.D14 08.05.2017 3,000
Ex.D15 06.08.2015 5,000
Ex.D16 07.09.2015 4,000
Ex.D17 31.12.2014 10,000
Ex.D18 10.09.2013 1,000
Ex.D19 16.10.2015 5,000
Ex.D20 11.03.2015 400
Ex.D21 02.02.2015 13,000
Ex.D22 22.01.2015 300
Ex.D25 15.01.2013 4,200
Ex.D26 19.11.2015 5,000
Ex.D27 29.06.2015 4,000
Ex.D28 07.01.2016 5,000
Ex.D29 08.12.2015 4,500
Ex.D30 31.03.2015 1,200
Ex.D31 31.12.2014 1,400
Ex.D32 07.11.2016 6,000
Ex.D33 10.11.2016 3,000
Ex.D34 02.01.2017 3,000
Ex.D35 05.01.2017 5,700
Ex.D36 01.03.2017 5,700
Ex.D37 01.03.2017 2,300
Ex.D38 01.03.2017 2,300
23.01.2024 2,00,000
Total 4,05,600
11. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff could not point out these payments in the account statements produced by the plaintiff bank. Therefore, it is clear that the above payments are not included in the bank account statement 8 O.S.No.5317/2017 relied upon by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the above payment of ₹4,05,600/- shall be deducted from the suit claim.
12. The suit claim is Rs.5,33,510/-. The suit came to be filed on 03.08.2017. Ex.D1 to 38 shows that an amount of ₹2,05,600/- was paid before the institution of the suit and the remaining amount of ₹2,00,000/- was paid on 23.01.2024. Therefore, an amount of ₹2,05,600/- shall be directly deducted from the total claim amount of ₹5,33,510/-. Therefore, in the due amount, amount of Rs.2,05,600/- shall be required to be deducted. Further, the amount of ₹2 lakhs paid on 23.01.2024 is also required to be deducted. On these observations, issues No.1 & 2 are answered partly in the affirmative, holding that the plaintiff-bank is entitled to recover the amount after deducting the amount of ₹4,05,600/- paid as above.
13. Issue No.3:- In view of the answer given to issues No.1 & 2 as above, the plaintiff-bank is entitled for the balance amount after deducting ₹4,05,600/-. The liability to pay interest shall be calculated by taking into account the dates on which the above payment of ₹4,05,600/- are paid. The exact interest liability can be calculated in the execution petition. Therefore, if the defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,27,910/- (5,33,510-4,05,600) along with interest at the rate of 12.25% per annum after taking into consideration the dates of the payment of ₹4,05,600/- made as 9 O.S.No.5317/2017 above, it would be just and proper. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-
ORDER The suit is decreed in part with the proportionate cost.
The defendants are directed to pay a sum of ₹1,27,910/- along with interest at the rate of 12.25% per annum.
The interest shall be calculated after taking into consideration the dates on which the amount of ₹4,05,600/- is paid as noted in para-10 of this judgment.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Dictaphone and Speech to Text App, carried out corrections by the Senior Sheristedar, print out taken and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 2 nd day of February, 2026) (Vijaya Kumar Rai) X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW.1 : B.L.N. Swamy PW.2 : Shanees K.A.
List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P1 : Authorization letter Ex.P2 : Loan application Ex.P3 : Loan sanction intimation Ex.P4 : Loan agreement Ex.P5 : Letter of undertaking 10 O.S.No.5317/2017 List of witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W1 : G. Shivananda List of documents exhibited for defendants: Ex.D.1 to 38 : Counter files Ex.D39 : Endorsement Ex.D40 : Unsigned demand promissory note Ex.D41 : Copy of take delivery letter Ex.D42 : Copy of the letter given to the Bank Ex.D43 & 44: Copies of notices X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
Digitally signed by VIJAYA VIJAYA KUMAR RAI KUMAR B Date:
RAI B 2026.02.02 17:52:10 +0530