Telangana High Court
D.V.Prasad Rao,Old Paloncha,Khammam vs Br.Mngr,S.B.,Of ... on 25 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
APPEAL SUIT No.2915 OF 2000
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2000 in O.S. No. 1 of 1990 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally (for short, 'the trial Court'), whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,80,770/- was allowed by the trial Court.
2. The appellant herein is defendant No.4 and respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are defendant Nos.1 to 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the main suit.
3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated defendant No.4 to file the present appeal, are as follows:
It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are partners of defendant No.1-Company, borrowed Rs.1,39,338.80 with 12% interest per annum from the plaintiff-Bank by executing the necessary documents including revival letters dated 05.04.1984, agreement of hypothecation, guarantee hypothecating the stocks, assets etc., of defendant No.1-Company and defendant No.3 created equitable mortgage of his lands situated at Gollapoodi village in Madhira Taluka in favour of the plaintiff-Bank on 31.08.1991 by depositing title deeds under a memorandum. It is stated that the 2 legal notice dated 21.01.1985 was issued to the defendants by the plaintiff-Bank demanding the due payment of Rs.2,80,770.10 ps., however, the defendants have not responded to the same. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,80,770.10 from the defendants. Pendente lite, defendant No.3 expired and his son brought on record as defendant No.4 as per the order dated 08.06.2000 passed in I.A. No.185 of 1996. Defendant No.4 filed I.A. No.612 of 1999 to dismiss the suit as adjusted and the same was partly allowed recording part satisfaction of Rs.1,50,000/- only.
4. Before the trial Court, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte and defendant No.4, who is legal representative of the deceased defendant No.3, filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that he never created an equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank with regard to his lands. It is also contended that he never executed any revival letters in favour of the Bank as he is not acquainted with the documents.
5. Based on the above pleadings,the trial Court has framed the following issues on 19.03.1991:
1. Whether the equitable mortgage in respect of the suit schedule is true valid and binding upon the defendants?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree?
3. To what relief?
6. The plaintiff, in support of his case, examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 3 got marked Exs.A.1 to A.16 and Exs.B.1 to B.3. On behalf of the defendants, none was examined and no document was marked.
7. The trial Court on appreciating the evidence on record, has allowed the suit entitling the plaintiff to claim the contractual rate of interest on the balance of the suit amount. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by defendant No.4.
8. Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Podila Hari Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the material available on record.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards full settlement, wherein, respondent No.1/Bank gave letter in Ex.A.2 stating that as per the compromise proposal approved by the competent authority of the Bank, Rs.30,000/- was paid on 15.02.1999 and balance of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid on 15.03.1999 and that total of Rs.1,50,000/- was received towards the compromise. He further submitted that when Rs.1,50,000/- was received towards the compromise, respondent No.1-Bank cannot claim that the authority who issued Ex.A.2 is not competent. He also submitted that the appellant and others, who are the outsiders, are not responsible with the internal management of the Bank. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the appeal. 4
10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that marking of the documents in interlocutory application is not proper and defendant No.4 has not adduced any evidence in the suit. He further sought to sustain the impugned judgment of the trial Court stating that the trial Court has rightly allowed the suit after considering the evidence on record and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
11. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material evidence available on record. The points to be considered are that:
(1) Whether the appellant here obtained loan by way of equitable mortgage?
(2) Whether the compromise letter issued by the Bank is valid and it can be considered to be towards final settlement of the suit amount?
12. Point No.1: To Prove that the Bank gave loan to defendant Nos.1 to 3, they relied on Exs.A.1 to A.7 and the same documents were admitted by the defendants, as such, there is no dispute with regard to the loan granted by the Bank and also there is no dispute with regard to the amount advanced by the Bank. Hence, it can be concluded that the Bank granted loan amount.
5
13. Point No.2: The appellant herein filed I.A. No.612 of 1999 before the trial Court to dismiss the suit as they already compromised the matter with the Bank by paying Rs.1,50,000/- towards full satisfaction of the suit amount. The suit amount is Rs.2,80,770.10 ps., and the Bank accepted Rs.1,50,000/- towards full satisfaction. In I.A. No.612 of 1999, defendant No.4 filed Ex.A.1, draft letter to be addressed to the borrower after approval of compromise proposal by competent authority dated 15.02.1999 and Ex.A.2, letter of state bank of Hyderabad, Paloncha Branch, dated 01.03.1999 i.e., receipt for Rs.1,50,000/-. Further, respondent No.1-Bank stated that the said compromise is not valid as the concerned Branch Manager is not authorised to accept the amount towards final settlement and he has not taken any permission from the Zonal office and as such, disciplinary departmental proceedings are initiated against him. In support of the same, he filed Ex.B.1, letter of the State Bank of Hyderabad, Palwancha Branch, vide No.F/30/65 dated 12.05.1999, Ex.B.2, disciplinary proceedings issued by the disciplinary authority, general manager, operations, dated 09.06.1999, Ex.B.3, confidential letter issued by N.N.Reddy dated 12.05.1999. However, no evidence is adduced by respondent No.1-Bank to prove that the concerned Branch Manager is not authorised officer to accept the amount towards full satisfaction of the loan amount. It is noteworthy that initiating proceedings against the concerned officer is not a ground 6 to set aside the document under Ex.A.2 and as such, the amount paid by the defendants to respondent No.1-Bank towards full satisfaction of the loan amount under Ex.A.2 has to be considered when there is no contra evidence and moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that the said amount is not received by respondent No.1-Bank.
14. Pertinently, when respondent No.1-Bank is admitting the receiving of Rs.1,50,000/-, they are estopped to say that the said Branch Manager is not competent to compound the suit amount. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned judgment dated 03.07.2000 in view of the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- towards full satisfaction of the suit amount.
15. In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2000 passed in O.S. No. 1 of 1990 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ K.SUJANA, J 25.07.2025 gms