Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
E. Anantha Ramana vs State Bank Of India, Kothakota, ... on 23 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)ALD585, 2001(3)ALT22
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
ORDER
1. Defendant is the petitioner before this Court. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,681-30 from the petitioner herein before the learned trial Judge. The plaintiff/respondent proceeded on the basis that the defendant/ petitioner had taken loan of Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff-Bank towards agricultural expenses on 22-8-1988. The said loan was collaterally secured by agreement for hypothecation executed by the defendant/ petitioner on the same day in terms whereof he had agreed to repay the said amount with interest at 11.5% per annum. It is the further case of the plaintiff/respondent that the defendant/petitioner executed revival letters on 26-10-1989 and 21-10-1992.
2. The defendant/petitioner in his written statement admitted the borrowing of the aforementioned sum. He, however, denied the execution of the hypothecation agreement, revival letters, etc.
3. The plaintiff/respondent in support of its claim examined two witnesses and proved certain documents, which were marked as Exs.A1 to A6. The defendant/ petitioner also deposed in the suit and exhibited certain documents. He also examined one Sanga Narayana. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues for consideration:
"1. Whether the defendant did not execute Ex.A1 revival letter dated 21-10-1992 and as such the suit is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the suit debt is wiped off under the Agricultural and Rural Debt relief scheme, 1990?
3. Whether the plaintiff-Bank is entitled to a decree against the defendant for the entire suit amount or any part thereof?"
4. The learned trial Judge while deciding issue No.1, inter alia, held that the disputed document viz., Ex.A1, was in fact signed by the petitioner herein and as such the suit is not barred by limitation. As regards issue No.2, it was held that the petitioner herein is not entitled to the benefit of debt relief. The said issue was also answered in favour of the respondent herein and against the petitioner. On issue No.3, it was held:
"The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence contained in Exs.A1 to A6 is overwhelmingly proving that barring Rs.1,000/- paid under Ex.A2, the defendant did not at all repay any amount due under the suit loan. Further the said part payment of Rs.1,000/- covered by Ex.A2 has been already given credit as can be seen from Ex.A5 ledger extract and also as per the evidence of PW1. In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff-Bank, I am convinced to answer this point also in favour of the plaintiff-Bank and against the defendant holding that the plaintiff-Bank is entitled to a decree against the defendant for the entire suit amount of Rs.9,681-30."
5. Mr. Murthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein, inter alia, submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner had denied and disputed the correctness or otherwise of three documents, viz., Exs.A1, A4 and A6, the learned Court below having regard to the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act ought not to have undertaken the task of comparing the disputed signature. The learned Counsel would submit that a bare perusal of the oral evidences adduced by the plaintiff/respondent would clearly show that whereas PW1 stated that all the documents were executed at the Bank, PW2 stated that the same were executed in the village and thus having regard to the aforementioned discrepancy, the learned Court below ought to have come to the conclusion that the impugned documents had not been signed by his client. The learned Counsel further urged that even no counter-signature was obtained on the said papers. The attention of this Court, however, has been drawn to the signatures obtained on agreement for hypothecation, revival letter No. 1 and some other documents to show that the purported signatures of the petitioner therein greatly vary.
6. The short question which arises for consideration in this application is as to whether Court is totally debarred from comparing the disputed signature itself.
7. It is no doubt true that normally the Court should not embark upon such exercise having regard to the fact that it does not possess the expertise in this regard. But it is one such a case where the Court had no option but to do it having regard to the fact that the disputed signatures were not sent for comparison to the handwriting expert; as a result whereof the Court is not in a position to get the assistance of an expert.
8. It may be true that examination of questioned documents is a matter of science, but it is also equally well settled that the Court will not readily accept the allegation that such documents are not genuine. For arriving at a correct conclusion, it must consider the entire materials on record. As noticed hereinbefore, the plea of taking loan is not disputed. One of the pleas taken by the defendant/petitioner was that recovery of the same was barred under the law of limitation. It therefore does not appear to this Court as to how the signature on the hypothecation document would be disputed. If the loan was obtained by the petitioner herein on some other documents, he could have called for the same and would have produced before the learned Court below. He did not choose to do so.
9. So far as the revival letter is concerned, the learned trial Judge not only relied upon the evidence of two witnesses, who were examined on behalf ofthe plaintiff/respondent, but took some care to compare the disputed documents himself with the admitted document, viz., vakalth, written statement and deposition vis-a-vis, Ex.A4.
10. It appears from the judgment under revision that before the learned trial Judge DW1 merely pleaded his inability to repay the amount and inter alia alleged that he had requested the plaintiff-Bank to extend to him the benefit of debt relief scheme. He further stated that such debt relief scheme has been extended by the Bank to some other persons. He, however, in his cross-examination, inter alia, stated that he is a contractor and had obtained contract in Konam Special Division Works and given said work in sub-contract to some other person.
11. The learned trial Judge further took into consideration the evidence of DW1 to the effect that out of the aforementioned loan amount, he had paid Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff-Bank, but his explanation to the effect that such payment was made towards welfare of his villagers had not been accepted by the learned trial Judge. His signature on Ex.A2, voucher, was not accepted. Even the plea to the effect that he had signed the voucher ten days after the date of execution thereof did not find place in his pleadings. It further appears that the comparison of the signatures was made by the learned trial Judge at the instance of the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant/ petitioner.
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case where this Court should interfere with the impugned judgment. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.