Bangalore District Court
Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs Purushothaman.R S/O. Rama on 1 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H.5)
Dated: This the 1st day of September 2015
Present: Shri Krishnamurthy B.Sangannanavar,
B.Com.LL.B.,(Special)
IX Addl. C.C & S.J, Bangalore.
O.S. NO.7716/2011
Plaintiff: Reliance Asset Reconstruction
Company Ltd.(RARC) in its capacity as
trustee of Reliance- ARC-IB, Chennai,
Trust having its registered office at
Reliance Centre, 90, Walchand
Harichand Marg Ballal Estate,
Mumbai 400 001 and Corporate office
at 570, Rectifier House, 2nd Floor, Next
to Royal Industrial Estate, Naigaum
Cross Road, Wadala, Mumbai 400 031
Represented by INDIAN BANK Branch
at No.9/19, Sankey Road, Sadashiva-
nagar, Bangalore 560 003 through its
Chief Manager Ms.A.Vijayakumari, in
the capacity of Agent of RARC.
[By Sri.K.Shrikrishna, advocate]
-Vs-
Defendants: 1. Purushothaman.R S/o. Rama-
chandran, Major, R/a No.76-B, John
Bell Street, Viveknagar, Bangalore-560
075.
2. Smt.Sarala W/o. Purushothaman.R,
Major, R/a No.76-B, John Bell Street,
Viveknagar, Bangalore 560 075.
(By Sri.MHS, advocate)
2 O.S.No.7716/11
Date of institution of the suit 31.10.2011
Nature of the suit Money Suit
Date of commencement of 09.04.2013
recording the evidence
Date on which the judgment 01.09.2015
was pronounced
Total duration : Day/s Month/s Year/s
00 10 03
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by plaintiff for recovery of Rs.5,23,508/- with cost and interest at the rate of 10.25% p.a. compounded monthly rests from the date of suit till realization.
2. On facts, case of the plaintiff is pleaded below:
The 1st defendant is principal borrower and 2nd defendant is the guarantor to the credit facility. Rs.7,20,000/- was sanctioned in favour of 1st defendant under Indian Bank Home loan scheme. The defendants have accepted the terms of sanction acknowledging the sanction ticket executing necessary documents in favour of the 3 O.S.No.7716/11 said Bank. The plaintiff is an assignee. The property mortgaged by the 1st defendant was sold by authorized officer of Indian Bank and the sale proceeds thereof adjusted to the loan account. The present suit filed for recovery of balance amount outstanding in the loan account. As per RBI guidelines, the loan account of the defendants was classified as NPA and as on the date of institution of the suit, defendants are liable to pay Rs.5,23,508/- for which a decree has been sought.
3. On facts, defence put forth by defendants is as follows:
They contend that Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as time barred. The defendants are not liable to pay any amount and defendants denied all the allegations made in the plaint. When the plaintiff company assigned on 28.10.2010, Indian Bank has lost the right to recover, as such suit filed is bad in law. The alleged loan is said to have been obtained on 16.11.2005 and the recovery of loan amount should have been initiated within 3 years namely before 16.11.2008 as such, suit is barred by law of limitation and the suit is liable to be dismissed.4 O.S.No.7716/11
4. In view of the above prime pleadings, this court formulated the following issues for the purpose of trial:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant has borrowed a housing loan of Rs.7,20,000/- on 16.11.2005 from plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same with an interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and have executed on demand Promissory Note and other documents?
(2) Whether the defendant proves that, the Bank and builders obtained blank documents from defendant & his wife?
(3) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
(4) Whether the defendant proves that, suit is bad in law in view of para 17 of written statement?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?
(6) What order or decree?
5. In support of the above issues, plaintiff examined as P.Ws.1 & 2 and through them, Exs. P-1 to P-8 documents got marked. On the contrary, 5 O.S.No.7716/11 the defendants failed to adduce oral or documentary evidence in support of their defence.
6. After closure of evidence on either side, having heard the learned counsels on record, this court would prefer to record the following findings on the above issues:
Issue Nos.1 & 5 : In the Affirmative Issue Nos.2 to 4 : In the Negative Issue No.6 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Issue Nos.1 to 4: All these issues are taken together for discussion and determination to avoid repetition of facts found in the evidence placed on record by plaintiff, since burden to prove issue No.1 is on the plaintiff while issue No.2 to 4 is upon the defendant.
8. It is the case of the plaintiff that present suit for recovery of Rs.5,23,508/- is on account of classification of loan availed by defendants as NPA as per RBI Guidelines, since the mortgaged property was sold by authorized officer of Indian Bank and the sale proceeds there of was adjusted 6 O.S.No.7716/11 to the loan account and the present suit is being filed for recovery of balance amount outstanding in the loan account of the defendants.
9. The plaintiff has pleaded that Indian Bank has assigned the debt due together with all attendant securities created in favour of M/s. Reliance Assets Reconstruction Company in short RARC. As a consequence of assignment, amount payable under the security documents executed by defendants in favour of Indian Bank shall be payable to the assignee, namely the plaintiff herein as they are the creditors after the assignment.
10. In this regard, plaintiff examined P.W.1 Mr.Mohana Krishna, Chief Manager of Indian Bank who has reiterated plaint averments and in cross- examination deposed that they have produced statement of account showing liability of the defendants as per Ex.P-8. In Ex.P-4, purpose of granting loan is mentioned as purchase of site and construction of building thereon. He admits that statement of account of loan was entered from 16.11.2005 as per Ex.P-1. He admits that he has not produced statement of account from 7 O.S.No.7716/11 16.11.2005 to 30.11.2005. He admits that there is entry of debit for a sum of Rs.2,38,000/- as per Ex.P-8. He also admits that in this document shown the said figure in debit column. He deposed further that Ex.P-8 is brought forward which could be seen from evidence of P.W.2 marked as per Ex.P-8(a).
11. P.W.2 Mr. Hebsur Rehman is Chief Manager of the Indian Bank has also got identified Ex.P-1 to P-8 and 8(a) the vital documents. The most important document would be Ex.P-6 acknowledgement of debt-cum-security is dated 1.1.2008. It is to be noted here that the suit filed by plaintiff is on 31.10.2011, as such without requirement of proof suit filed by the plaintiff has to be held well within time limitation. It is therefore, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that plaintiff's suit is barred by time. In other words to say that through Ex.P-6 acknowledge- ment of debt-cum-security, suit is saved by time limitation. It was acknowledged as such institution of suit by the plaintiff on 31.10.2011 has to be held filed well within time limitation. Further, Ex.P-1 is a sanction ticket. Ex.P-2 is DP note they 8 O.S.No.7716/11 are dated 16.11.2005. Ex.P-3 is also of the same date disposal of proceeds letter along with term loan agreement for housing finance. Ex.P-7 statement of account and in those account as on 30th October 2011, account shows Rs.5,23,508/- was due and for which the plaintiff has sought for decree to recover the balance amount from defendants. Ex.P-8 is statement of account-loans. Ex.P-8(a) is certificate certifying that statement of accounts filed along with the plaint are true copies of the print out taken from computer systems of the bank.
12. Thus, the above such documents coupled with evidence of P.W.1 and 2, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for assigning loan in favour of plaintiff and is barred by law of limitation. Under such circumstances, finding on issue No.1 would be record without saying in the Affirmative and it goes without saying that findings on issues 2 to 4 would be in the Negative.
13. Issue No.5 : In view of the above findings, plaintiff is held entitled for the suit claim against 9 O.S.No.7716/11 defendants 1 and 2. Accordingly, finding on this issue would be record in the Affirmative.
14. Issue No.6: In view of the above findings and in the result, this court passes the following:
O R D E R
(a) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
(b) The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.5,23,508/- with cost and interest at 10.25% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.
(c) Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the J.W., transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 1st day of September 2015).
(Krishnamurthy B.Sangannanavar) IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
A N N E X U R E List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 Mohana Krishnan
P.W.2 M.Hebsur Rahman
10 O.S.No.7716/11
List of witnesses examined for defendants:
Nil List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P-1 Sanction Ticket
Ex.P-2 Demand Promissory Note dated
16.11.2005
Ex.P-3 Disposal of proceeds letter
Ex.P-4 Term loan agreement for housing
loan
Ex.P-5 Agreement of guarantee
Ex.P-6 Acknowledgment of debt cum
security
Ex.P-7 The notarized copy of GPA
Ex.P-8 Statement of account
Ex.P-8(a) Certificate dt.6.7.2015
List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Nil IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.