Bangalore District Court
Punjab National Bank vs Manohara L H on 26 March, 2026
KABC170032902025
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-85)
(Commercial Court)
THIS THE 26th DAY OF MARCH 2026
PRESENT:
SRI. ANAND T. CHAVAN. B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.)
LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.OS.No.1458/2025
Plaintiff:- Punjab National Bank,
(Erstwhile Oriental Bank of
Commerce),
Yelahanka Branch, Site No.1053,
(Opp. RMZ Galleria) NH-7,
B.B. Road, Yelahanka,
Bangalore-560064.
Rep by its Senior Manager,
Sri. S. N Girish,
S/o Late S.N. Kalluraya,
Aged about 54 years,
As the Principal Officer thereof
Mob: 9449773052
Email: [email protected]
(Rep by Sri. Ramesh Kumar K -Advocate)
2 Com.OS.1458/2025
V/s
Defendant:- Sri. Manohara L H,
Aged about 42 years,
H/o Late Sopna H,
M/s Tirumala Telecom,
Prop: Late Sopna.H,
Presently Sri. Manohara L.H,
No.3029, 4th Block,
Janapriya Heavens APPT,
Near Allalasandra Lake Yelahaka,
G.K.V.K Post, Bangalore-560065.
(Rep By Sri. B.N. Yogendra - Adv)
Date of Institution of the suit 17.10.2025
Nature of the suit (suit on
pro note, suit for declaration Suit for recovery of
& Possession, Suit for Money.
injunction etc.)
Date of commencement of 21.01.2026
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 26.03.2026
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 05 09
LXXXIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
3 Com.OS.1458/2025
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff bank has filed present suit against defendant seeking recovery of Rs.7,39,247.14/- towards suit claim together with court costs and current and future interest at the rate of 10.65% per annum compounded monthly from date of suit till realization. It is further prayed to proceed against the defendant and his mortgaged immovable properties in the schedule for realization of the amounts due and in case it is not adequate to recover the decretal amount, to permit the plaintiff to proceed against the defendant personally and against their all other properties, holding him personally liable to pay decretal amount.
2. The brief averments of plaint are as under:
The plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of The Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) No.40 of 1980, having its Corporate Office at Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, Newdelhi-110075 and carrying business through its branches at various places including its 4 Com.OS.1458/2025 branch office situated at Yelahanka Branch, Site No.1053 (Opp. RMZ Galleria) NH-7, BB Road, Yelahanka, Bangalore-560064. The plaintiff submitted that earlier the defendant maintained his loan account with Oriental Bank of Commerce at Yelahanka Branch. In view of the Order No.GSR 153(E) dtd.04.03.2020 passed by the Central Government of India under Sec.9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) and Sec.9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980), Oriental Bank of Commerce and United Bank of India into Punjab National Bank Scheme 2020, were merged and from 04.03.2020, all accounts of Oriental Bank of Commerce and United Bank of India have become the accounts of Punjab National Bank.
It is averred that, on 20.11.2023 wife of defendant by name Smt. Sopna H W/o Manohara L.H, being Proprietor of M/s Tirumala Telecom approached plaintiff bank seeking sanction of 5 Com.OS.1458/2025 working capital for her business requirements as per loan application dtd.20.11.2023. As per requirement of her telecommunication activities business, she availed cash credit facility of Rs.10 Lakhs from plaintiff bank on 21.11.2023 as per sanction letter. Said Sopna H executed an On demand pronote, hypothecation agreement of goods, master agreement in respect of said loan, by agreeing to repay the same on demand together with interest at the rate of 10.65% per annum compounded monthly, in 12 monthly equal installments. Further as security for above loan, she hypothecated the manufacturing material, raw material, furniture, fixtures and other items to plaintiff bank. Deceased borrower had failed to repay the overdraft/ cash credit loan facility with interest and chargers in spite of various demands and she had become chronic defaulter right from beginning. Though she was acknowledging her liability, she was pleading time to pay the dues, but failed to keep up her promises. Thereafter on 11.12.2024 said Sopna H died intestate and as per 6 Com.OS.1458/2025 information received by plaintiff bank, defendant being her husband succeeded to estate of properties. Further said borrower Sopna H has given an affidavit of legal heir dtd.28.11.2023. Hence finally notice was issued to defendant dtd.04.06.2025, which were not served upon him. But defendant pleaded time to pay the due amounts. As on the date of suit defendant is in due of Rs.7,39,247.14/- towards aforesaid loan. Thereafter the matter was referred to mediation under Sec.12A of Commercial Courts Act and the said reconciliation was failed. Hence present suit and it is prayed to decree the same as prayed for.
3. The defendant has appeared before this court in pursuant to summons and he has filed his written statement, wherein it is averred that, he has no knowledge about aforesaid loan borrowed by the borrower Sopna H, execution of loan documents and alleged default committed by her. Defendant has specifically contented that the present suit is misconceived and plaintiff has initiated present 7 Com.OS.1458/2025 recovery proceedings against him, though he is neither the borrower nor a party to the loan transaction. It is further averred that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the same on imaginary grounds and cause of action. The suit is filed with an intention to harass and embarrass defendant. It is further averred that defendant is neither borrower nor co-borrower to above loan and he has not executed any loan documents in favour of plaintiff bank. Further the suit is filed against defendant only for the reason that he is a legal heir of deceased borrower. Defendant has further contended that mere legal heirship does not create any contractual liability unless legal heirs inherit property of deceased borrower. The defendant has not got any property from the deceased nor he has entered into any contract with plaintiff by signing revival letter or acknowledgment of loan. It is further averred that plaintiff has failed to produce loan documents to show liability of defendant towards 8 Com.OS.1458/2025 loan borrowed by deceased borrower. Hence in the absence of privity of contract, defendant cannot be insisted or held liable to pay the dues. It is further averred that plaintiff has filed present suit solely on the basis of legal heirship and it has not disclosed material information with regard to inheritance status of defendant. Plaintiff has not shown its efforts to find out the estate actually devolved on the defendant from deceased borrower. The suit is casually filed without examining facts and legal requirements and defendant has no knowledge about the aforesaid loans.
4. Defendant has further specifically contented that, he never executed any loan documents, agreements, guarantees, acknowledgments, undertakings or securities in favour of the bank nor he has received any benefit or consideration under Sec.2(d) of Contract Act. Hence without such consideration, no liability can be fastened upon a third party. Further he is stranger to the transaction and he has not signed any acknowledgment under Sec.18 of 9 Com.OS.1458/2025 Limitation Act after death of borrower. Hence plaintiff bank cannot rely on any deemed continuation of liability in the absence of such documents. It is further contented by defendant that he is governed by Hindu Succession Act and as per settled principles of law a legal heir becomes liable only to the extent of assets inherited and in instant case no such inheritance has occurred. Hence no liability can legally devolve upon the defendant and such liability cannot be extended personally. Further plaintiff has disbursed the entire loan to the account of deceased borrower and defendant has not received anything from her. It is further averred that defendant has spent huge amount for treatment of his wife and plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs claimed in the suit. These amongst other grounds, defendant has prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5. In view of pleadings of both parties, this court has framed following issues:
1. Whether plaintiff bank proves that deceased wife of defendant by name Sopna H. being Proprietor of M/s 10 Com.OS.1458/2025 Tirumala Telecom borrowed cash credit loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from it on 21.11.2023 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 10.65% p.a. compounded monthly in 12 monthly equal installments as averred in para No.3 of the plaint?
2. Whether plaintiff bank proves that said Sopna H. became defaulter in repayment of said loan?
3. Whether plaintiff bank proves that defendant as a Legal Heir has succeeded to the estate of his wife Sopna H. and hence, he is liable to repay the aforesaid loan dues?
4. Whether defendant proves that he is not liable to pay aforesaid loan amount to plaintiff bank?
5. Whether plaintiff bank is entitled for the relief sought?
6. What order or decree?
6. In support of its case, plaintiff bank has got examined its Senior Manager as PW1 and got marked 14 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. However plaintiff has got marked Ex.P15 to 18 documetns by 11 Com.OS.1458/2025 way of confrontation to D.W.1 during course of his cross examination. On the other hand, defendant has got examined himself as DW1 and got marked 54 medical bills of deceased borrower as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D54.
7. Heard arguments of learned counsels for plaintiff and defendant. Perused evidence adduced by both parties.
8. The followings are answers to above issues:
Issue No.1:- In the Affirmative. Issue No.2:- In the Affirmative. Issue No.3:- In the Affirmative. Issue No.4:- In the Negative.
Issue No.5:- Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.6:- As per the final Order for the following;
REASONS
9. Issue Nos.1 & 2:- These issues are taken together for consideration as finding on one issue may have bearing on findings on other issues and same will avoid repetition of facts and evidence of case. The averments of plaint and written statement 12 Com.OS.1458/2025 filed by both parties are already narrated in detail in foregoing paras and same need not be repeated.
10. In support its case, plaintiff bank has got examined its Senior Manager by name S.N. Girish S/ o Late S.N Kalluraya as PW1, who has filed his affidavit reiterating entire averments of plaint with regard to availment of suit loan by deceased borrower Sopna H agreeing to repay the same with interest as averred in plaint, subsequent default committed by said borrower in repayment of loan and efforts made by plaintiff bank seeking recovery of said loan by issuing notice and by instituting PIM. Further plaintiff has got marked following Ex.P1 to 14 documents in support of its evidence & Ex.P15 to 18 are marked through DW1.
Copy of non starter report issued by DLSA Ex.P1 Bengaluru urban in PIM No.1318/2025 Ex.P2 Loan application of borrower.
Ex.P2 Signature of borrower on page No.6 of loan
(a) application
Ex.P3 Loan sanction letter dated.21.11.2023.
Ex.P4 On demand pro-note executed by borrower
13 Com.OS.1458/2025
dated.28.11.2023.
Ex.P5 Hypothecation agreement dated.28.11.2023.
Master agreement executed by borrower
Ex.P6
dated.28.11.2023.
True copy of Death certificate of borrower by name Ex.P7 Sopna. H. Ex.P8 Affidavit executed by borrower dated. 28.11.2023 Ex.P9 Recall notice issue to defendant dated.20.05.2025 Ex.P10 Postal receipt Office copy of legal notice issued to defendant Ex.P11 dated.04.06.2025.
Ex.P12 Postal receipt Ex.P13 Statement of loan account Certificate under provision of Banker book of Ex.P14 evidence Act.
Ex.P15 Copy of email with attached death certificate. & 16 Ex.P17 Copy of statement of current account. Ex.P18 Copies of 4 emails sent to plaintiff bank.
11. Ex.P1 discloses that plaintiff approached DLSA prior to filing of the suit and said proceedings were closed in view of absence of present defendant despite sufficient service of notice. Further Ex.P2 Loan application and Ex.P3 Sanction letter clearly 14 Com.OS.1458/2025 discloses that deceased borrower Sopna H has borrowed aforesaid cash credit facility of Rs.10 Lakhs on 21.11.2023 from plaintiff bank agreeing to terms and conditions and interest as narrated in the plaint. Further Ex.P2 and 3 discloses that the said borrower has affixed her signature in capacity of Proprietor of Tirumala Telecom. Further Ex.P4 On demand pronote, Ex.P5 Hypothecation agreement and Ex.P6 Master agreement discloses that the deceased borrower Sopna has executed said documents in favour of plaintiff bank towards aforesaid cash credit loan by hypothecating the stock, furniture and fixtures of her concern to plaintiff bank as a security to aforesaid loan. Ex.P7 Death certificate shows death of borrower Sopna H on 11.12.2024 and Ex.P8 affidavit said to have been sworn by the said borrower discloses that present defendant is her husband. Further PW1 has got marked a loan recall notice issued by plaintiff bank to defendant on 20.05.2025 calling upon him to repay the loan outstanding amount of Rs.8,42,731.88/- in capacity 15 Com.OS.1458/2025 of legal heir and successor of deceased borrower within 10 days from the date of said notice. Ex.P11 discloses that plaintiff bank has issued said legal notice on 04.06.2025 to defendant calling upon him to pay the loan dues of Rs.8,47,609.88/- along with agreed interest by specifically narrating about his liability to repay the loan as a legal representative of deceased borrower. Further Ex.P10, Ex.P12 postal receipts disclose dispatch of above notices and Ex.P13 statement of loan account shows that deceased borrower is in due of Rs.7,39,247.14/- towards aforesaid loan. Further PW1 has got marked his certificate under provisions of Bankers Books of Evidence Act in respect of aforesaid loan account statement as per Ex.P14.
12. The PW1 has been elaborately cross examined with regard to aforesaid loan transaction, wherein absolutely nothing is questioned by defendant with regard to aforesaid loan transaction nor the said transaction has been denied by way of suggestions to said witness. Except denying the liability of 16 Com.OS.1458/2025 defendant to repay the loan and non execution of any loan related document by defendant, nothing is suggested to PW1 with regard to the above loan nor said loan transaction has been denied by defendant by way of cross examination. Further defendant has also not denied the alleged default said to have been committed by deceased borrower in repayment of loan. Hence the aforesaid loan documents produced by plaintiff and alleged default committed by deceased borrower Sopna H have remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. Apart from aforesaid aspects, defendant has not put forth any documents countered to aforesaid loan documents and notices issued by plaintiff bank along with statement of loan account.
13. Further though defendant has also entered into witness box as DW1, he has not specifically denied and disputed the aforesaid suit loan in his chief examination affidavit and he has simply denied his personal liability to repay the loan. Further in written statement though defendant has vaguely denied the 17 Com.OS.1458/2025 knowledge of aforesaid loan transaction, in cross examination by counsel for plaintiff, DW1 has admitted an email with attached death certificate of deceased borrower Sopna H. said to have been addressed by him to plaintiff bank as per Ex.P15 and 16, which clearly shows that defendant himself has sought for extension of time of 90 days to clear overdraft loan of Tirumala Telecom after receiving amount from his debtors. Further on confrontation, DW1 has admitted current account statement of his wife Sopna H as per Ex.P17 and same was sent by plaintiff bank as per Ex.P18 emails. These aspects are sufficient to hold that defendant had knowledge of aforesaid loan transaction and he has not denied and disputed the same.
14. For these reasons it is incumbent upon this court to hold that the plaintiff has sufficiently proved that deceased borrower Sopna H had borrowed suit loan of Rs.10 Lakhs from plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the same in 12 installments along with interest at the rate of 10.65% per annum and subsequently 18 Com.OS.1458/2025 she has become defaulter in payment of said loan. For these reasons plaintiff bank has sufficiently proved Issue No.1 and 2 in its favour. Accordingly Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
15. Issue Nos.3 and 4:- The plaintiff bank has specifically asserted in present suit that defendant being husband of deceased borrower has succeeded to the estate of his wife Sopna H and as such he is liable to pay the suit loan amount. On the other hand defendant has specifically contented that since he has not borrowed said amount and there is no privity contract between himself and plaintiff bank, he is not liable to pay the suit loan dues. Further, defendant has specifically contented that he has incurred huge expenses for treatment of deceased borrower before her death and as such the plaintiff bank has no right to seek recovery of said loan from him.
16. However, PW1 has specifically testified with regard to liability of defendant to pay the aforesaid 19 Com.OS.1458/2025 loan by defendant for having succeeded the properties of deceased borrower Sopna H and he has relied upon Ex.P8 affidavit of legal heir executed by said deceased borrower herself. PW1 has been elaborately cross examined by defendant side with regard to his liability to repay the loan, wherein PW1 has admitted that defendant is not original borrower and he has not signed any of loan document. He has further admitted that the suit loan account does not belong to defendant and he has not signed any guarantor documents or acknowledgment of debts, letter of revival in respect of suit loan. PW1 further admits that original borrower has not given any documents to show that defendant has derived any income from suit loan. He has volunteered that they were not even aware of death of borrower until defendant handed over her death certificate to them.
17. Defendant has also entered into witness box as DW1 and he has filed his affidavit by reiterating averments of his written statement and by seriously challenging his liability to pay the suit loan amount to 20 Com.OS.1458/2025 plaintiff bank. He has specifically asserted that he is neither a borrower nor co-borrower in respect of aforesaid loans nor he has signed any documents or acknowledgments in respect of suit loan. Hence it is contented by defendant that present suit solely based upon legal heirship of defendant is not maintainable in the absence of proving that the estate of deceased borrower has been devolved upon him. Further DW1 has reiterated the factum of incurring huge expenses for treatment of deceased borrower and in that regard he has got marked as many as 54 medical bills issued in the name of Sopna H as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D54. However mere incurring Medical expenses cannot be ground to waive off the aforesaid loan and liability of defendant has to be determined on the basis of estate succeeded by him through deceased borrower.
18. DW1 has been subjected to elaborate cross examination by plaintiff side, wherein he has testified that he is an employee of BSNL, his wife expired on 11.12.2024 and she was doing contract work of 21 Com.OS.1458/2025 internet cables from their house itself. He has further stated that, though she has not engaged any employees, her brother was looking after her work. DW1 further stated that his wife started suffering from ill-health from 03.07.2024, when she accidentally fell in their house and he himself informed plaintiff bank about her death. Most importantly on confrontation of copy of an email attached to death certificate of his wife Sopna H, DW1 has admitted that same was forwarded by him to plaintiff bank and said copies of email and death certificates are marked as Ex.P15 and Ex.P16. Further DW1 has clearly admitted that, the email address by name [email protected] appearing in Ex.P15 email belongs to him. Further DW1 admits statement of current account of his wife Sopna H held with plaintiff bank on confrontation as per Ex.P17 and thread of four emails sent by him from his email account as per Ex.P18. Ex.P15 email clearly shows that defendant himself has requested plaintiff bank for extension of time of 90 days to clear the 22 Com.OS.1458/2025 overdraft facility after getting receivables of Rs.25 Lakhs from his debtors. Further Ex.P17 current account statement of Tirumala Telecom and Sopna H clearly shows that the transactions of said Proprietorship concern have continued even after death of Sopna H from 11.12.2024 till 18.08.2025, which is sufficient to believe that the said Proprietorship concern is not closed and it has continued its business even after death of deceased borrower.
19. DW1 has clearly admitted that his wife used to transact even after 03.07.2024 and he asserts to be residing in his own flat. Though he denies that said flat was standing in the name of his wife, he has not produced any documents to show the ownership of said flat. DW1 has further denied that as per Ex.P7 (which appears to be Ex.P17) he has made transactions in the account of Tirumala Telecom even after death of deceased borrower Sopna H on 05.02.2025, but asserts that her brother made transactions in said account. This aspect shows that 23 Com.OS.1458/2025 aforesaid Tirumala Telecom was running even after death of deceased borrower Sopna H. DW1 has further denied that on 20.05.2025 he has withdrawn FD amount of his wife as per Ex.P17 and as per direction of concerned manager he has redeposited Rs.20,000/- in said account. He has further denied that he himself was carrying out all transactions of Tirumala Telecom and his wife was a nominal partner in said concern. He has further clearly denied that since he himself used to carry out above transactions of Tirumala Telecom, he is personally liable to pay debts of plaintiff bank in capacity of its owner and also in capacity of LR of deceased borrower. He has further denied the suggestions that he himself has transacted with plaintiff bank in respect of loan account and current account of Tirumala Telecom and now he deposing falsely to avoid the liability of suit debt.
20. Thus, on meticulous perusal of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, it is crystal clear that deceased Sopna H had borrowed 24 Com.OS.1458/2025 suit loan from plaintiff bank in capacity of Proprietor of Tirumala Telecom and she became defaulter in repayment of loan, which is not disputed by both sides. Further as already stated above the loan documents, the relationship of defendant with deceased borrower as per Ex.P8 affidavit is not denied and disputed by defendant. The only contention raised by defendant is that, since he has not personally borrowed aforesaid loan amount and he is not party to said loan transaction either as borrower or guarantor, he cannot be personally held liable to repay the loan dues to plaintiff bank. However defendant admits that as per Hindu Succession Act, a legal heir is liable to pay loans borrowed by the manager of a family or a business to the extent of estate of deceased derived by him.
21. In present case though defendant has categorically denied his liability to pay the suit loan, he has admitted making correspondence with plaintiff bank as per Ex.P15 email, wherein he himself has communicated about death of borrower 25 Com.OS.1458/2025 and he himself has undertook to repay the loan within specific period of 90 days, which is a strong ground to believe that defendant has succeeded to aforesaid business of deceased by name Tirumala Telecom and he has acknowledged the liability of suit loan by way of said email. Moreover, Ex.P17 statement of current account of Tirumala Telecom clearly reveals the continuation of its business even after the death of deceased borrower.
22. Further though DW1 asserts that brother of deceased borrower was looking after said business, he has neither disclosed his name nor examined said brother of deceased to prove continuation of said business by him. In the absence of such evidence and in view of Ex.P15 admitted email of DW1, which is in the form of acknowledgment of debt, it is sufficient to hold that defendant being a sole LR of deceased borrower Sopna H has inherited her business and estate after her death. Further counsel for plaintiff has highlighted an entry dtd.20.05.2025 of Ex.P17 to show withdrawal of FD amount of 26 Com.OS.1458/2025 deceased and subsequent redepositing of Rs.20,000/- in to said account, which is denied by DW1. However when there are no other LRs to deceased borrower except defendant, no other person can enter into such transactions. The DW1 has not explained anything with regard to said transactions and the above document is an additional ground to believe that he has succeeded to entire estate of deceased as her sole heir.
23. For these reasons the plaintiff bank has sufficiently proved the liability of defendant to repay the above loan dues as a sole LR, in view of succeeding the estate and business of deceased. On the other hand defendant has failed to prove that he is not liable to pay the same. Hence Issue Nos.3 is answered in the Affirmative and Issue No.4 is answered in the Negative.
24. Issue No.5:- The plaintiff has sufficiently proved the aforesaid suit loan transaction and default committed by the deceased borrower in repayment 27 Com.OS.1458/2025 of suit loan. The plaintiff bank has further sufficiently proved the liability of paying an amount of Rs.7,39,247.14/- towards said loan with agreed interest at the rate of 10.65% per annum compounded monthly. Further though defendant has denied his liability to repay the loan, the plaintiff bank by producing Ex.P15 email has proved acknowledgment of said debt by defendant and it has also made out grounds to believe that defendant has succeeded to the estate and business of Tirumala Telecom of his deceased wife Sopna H as her sole LR. Thus plaintiff has sufficiently proved that defendant is liable to repay the aforesaid loan dues.
25. However the counsel for defendant has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.1732/2018 between Ramesh B. and others Vs. Hosamani and vehemently argued that relationship between borrower and lender can only be created by contract under Indian Contract Act and a promise made by promisor is binding on legal representatives of such 28 Com.OS.1458/2025 promisor on his death, unless contrary intention appear from the contract. He has further argued that such promise to perform an obligation cannot be a personal and liability of such legal representatives cannot be a personal liability, but only to the extent of estate of deceased inherited by them as per Sec.37 of Contract Act. The relevant portion of said judgment is culled out as under:-
"12. The relationship between the borrower and lender is created by a contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The promise made by a promisor is binding on his/her representatives in case of his/her death, unless contrary intention appears from the contract. The promise to perform an obligation under a contract is not personal to the contracting party but is also binding on his representatives. Legal representatives under law are liable for dues of predecessor to the extent of any property inherited by them from their predecessor in interest. Legal representatives are not personally liable for the liability but liability to the extent of estate of deceased inherited by them. Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as under:
37. Obligation of parties to contract.- The parties to a contract must either perform, or offer to perform, their respective promises, unless such performance is dispensed with or excused under the provisions of this Act, or of any other law.
29 Com.OS.1458/2025 Promises bind the representatives of the promisors incase of death of such promisors before performance, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract.
Illustrations
(a) A promises to deliver goods to B on a certain day on payment of Rs.1,000. A dies before that day. As representatives are bound to deliver the goods to B, and B is bound to pay Rs.1,000 to A's representatives.
(b) A promises to paint a picture for B by a certain day, at a certain price. A dies before the day. The contract, cannot be enforced either by A's representatives or by B. Salmond on Jurisprudence (12th edition, page No. 443) has examined the question of right and liabilities of a dead man and has observed as under:
The rights which a dead man thus leaves behind him vest in his representative. They pass to some person whom the dead man, or the law on his behalf, has appointed to represent him in the world of the living. This representative bears the person of the deceased, and therefore has vested in him all the inheritable rights, and has imposed upon him all the inheritable liabilities of the deceased, Inheritance is in some sort a legal fictitious continuation of the personality of the dead man, for the representative is in some sort identified by the law with him whom he represents. The rights which the dead man can no longer own or exercise in propria persona, and the obligations
30 Com.OS.1458/2025 which he can no longer in propria persona fulfil, he owns, exercises, and fulfils in the person of a living substitute. To this extent, and in this fashion, it may be said that the legal personality of a man survives his natural personality, until his obligations being duly performed, and his property duly disposed of, his representation among the living is no longer called for.
The representative of a dead man, though the property of the deceased is vested in him, is not necessarily the beneficial owner of it. He holds it on behalf of two classes of persons, among whom he himself may or may not be numbered. These are the creditors and the beneficiaries of the estate. Just as many of a mans rights survive him, so also do many of his liabilities; and these inheritable obligation pass to his representative, and must be satisfied by him. Being, however, merely the representative of another, he is not liable in propria persona, and his responsibility is limited by the amount of the property which he has acquired from the deceased."
26. However, as already concluded above, it is proved that, defendant has succeeded to aforesaid business of deceased by name Tirumala Telecom and he has acknowledged the liability of suit loan by way of admitted Ex.P15 email. Moreover, Ex.P17 statement of current account of Tirumala Telecom 31 Com.OS.1458/2025 clearly reveals the continuation of its business even after the death of deceased borrower. Hence as per aforesaid Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka itself, defendant being a Legal heir of a deceased borrower of a loan, has limited liability to discharge debts of deceased to extent of property, which has been inherited by him from deceased. Hence defendant must be held liable to repay the present suit loan to plaintiff bank out of property and aforesaid business derived by him from deceased borrower.
27. Further, Plaintiff bank has claimed repayment of aforesaid loan with interest at the rate of 10.65% per annum compounded monthly. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of loan borrowed by defendant, it is just and proper to direct defendant to repay the loan amount with future simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum, which appears to be just and proper to meet ends of justice.
32 Com.OS.1458/2025
28. Further though plaintiff has claimed permission to proceed against defendant personally and against his mortgaged immovable property in the schedule, as already stated above defendant cannot be held personally liable to pay the loan and he can held liable only to the extent of property inherited by him from deceased borrower. Further, as far as alleged mortgage immovable property is concerned, absolutely there is nothing on record to show that deceased borrower has mortgaged any immovable property in favour of plaintiff bank towards suit loan nor any such property is mentioned in plaint. Hence no such relief of proceeding against any immovable property can be granted. However plaintiff may be permitted to sell the property hypothecated by deceased borrower under Ex.P5 Hypothecation Agreement to recover aforesaid loan. Thus the plaintiff bank has sufficiently proved the aforesaid loan transaction, default committed by deceased borrower and also the liability of defendant to repay the dues of said loan out of business or estate 33 Com.OS.1458/2025 inherited by him from his deceased wife Sopna H. Accordingly the plaintiff is entitled for the relief in above terms. Hence Issue No.5 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
29. ISSUE NO.6: For the reasons stated and finding given on Issue Nos.1 to 5, following is;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with costs.
Defendant is liable to pay sum of Rs.7,39,247.14/- to plaintiff bank with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of suit till realization, out of business or estate inherited by him from his deceased wife Sopna H. Further plaintiff bank is also entitled to recover aforesaid loan dues by way of attachment and sale of property hypothecated by deceased borrower under Ex.P5 Hypothecation Agreement.
Draw decree accordingly.
34 Com.OS.1458/2025 Office to send soft copies of the judgment to the e-mail Id's of the both parties, if email IDs furnished.
[Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, directly on the computer, typed by her, then corrected and signed by me and pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 26th day of March 2026] Digitally signed by ANAND T ANAND T CHAVAN CHAVAN Date: 2026.04.01 16:00:13 +0530 (ANAND T. CHAVAN) LXXXIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF PW.1 S.N. Girish LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Copy of non starter report issued by DLSA Ex.P1 Bengaluru urban in PIM No.1318/2025 Ex.P2 Loan application of borrower.
Ex.P2 Signature of borrower on page No.6 of loan
(a) application
Ex.P3 Loan sanction letter dated.21.11.2023.
Ex.P4 On demand pro-note executed by borrower
35 Com.OS.1458/2025
dated.28.11.2023.
Ex.P5 Hypothecation agreement dated.28.11.2023.
Master agreement executed by borrower
Ex.P6
dated.28.11.2023.
True copy of Death certificate of borrower by name Ex.P7 Sopna. H. Ex.P8 Affidavit executed by borrower dated. 28.11.2023 Ex.P9 Recall notice issue to defendant dated.20.05.2025 Ex.P10 Postal receipt Office copy of legal notice issued to defendant Ex.P11 dated.04.06.2025.
Ex.P12 Postal receipt Ex.P13 Statement of loan account Certificate under provision of Banker book of Ex.P14 evidence Act.
Ex.P15 Copy of email with attached death certificate. & 16 Ex.P17 Copy of statement of current account. Ex.P18 Copies of 4 emails sent to plaintiff bank.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT DW1 Mr. Manohara L.H 36 Com.OS.1458/2025 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Ex.D1 to Medical Bills.
Ex.D54
ANAND Digitally signed
by ANAND T
T CHAVAN
Date: 2026.04.01
CHAVAN 16:00:06 +0530
(ANAND T. CHAVAN)
LXXXIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.