Karnataka High Court
Prabhakar Mohan Sumant vs Canara Bank on 4 November, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 (1) AIR KAR R 726
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
TH
DATED THIS THE 01+ DAY 01-' Novermee 2910
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE V.G.SABI~I_£;;HI'1ff_. E' %
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J
REGULAR FIRST APPEAVI,.'_N0.1é06"0F. flviorij _
BETWEEN :
Dr.Prabhakar Mohan Suzmgnt,
Aged about 50 Years, _
S / 0 Sumant John Prabhakara, A
Practising Doctor, '
R/at N0.214/1, Di'vn."_'No.§1, 1:
North Extension ~ 7
Chickba11apur€Tox»*'J'n_,"" .
KOLAR 1)1sTRT~cT.t,__ _ * APPELLANT.
(By. Sri.(}aa:1§éshV13I*ia.t Adv.)
_____
Maj-zestic .B'rai1c_h;. V' v A
'V.' , A , V I{eTn1;')eC§?0w(1.a; R3;-afd Branch,
B-ANGALLORE-#9,
Rcptd. by its Branch Manager. RESPONDENT.
v4'(I3yT»Snri;U;fava1 N.Ramananda & C0. Advs.) *$***** """'t This appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree 'c',_."€§ated 03.10.1998 passed in O.S.No.6/1991 on the file er tiief-._CiVi1 Judge (Sr.Dn.) a JMFC, Chickballapur, decreeing recovery of money.
This Appeal having been if Judgment, this day S.N.Satyanarayaiw,_gJ., p.1'§)II0u.{1C$\Cl..fi1(:V following:
new» G MJEJN '«--.........~ This is defendants the Judgment and Decree dated"f)31;.10;i9§§€3'e.:ipazssfejdgvin:{{§.S.No.6/1991 on the file of Civil5Judge"'(Sr.i)n';):§'StJi/IF'{';,w.--Ci1ikkabal1apur.
2. The ate-.,:fet'e1red to by their rank in the Court be1ovs'rffopi* the "'conirenience.
v\ hifiefVg_factAs"1ea.ding to this appeal are as under:
defendant approached them for credit 'w'facilitfy"'«in of Rs.1,30,000/-- which was sanctioned on J' In this behalf defendant executed a pronote agfeeingfto repay the loan with interest at 6.5% p.a., over and J -«fabove the RBI miniznum rate at 16.5%, compounded W1 quarterly. The said loan was secured 'D3? deposit of title documents pertaining to suit schedule propevrty..:V.The equitable mortgage was created by plaintiff 15.02.1988 evidencing deposit of .title_ deeds" » documents at schedule "A" and descifipt-ion?' of schedule The defendantVtisiililanaginge of M/ Adap (Pvt) Limited. The... had-ralso availed several credit facilities and equitable mortgage was creatediri also. Since the present loan to defendant in his him for recovery of the loan amount onthe_securit§E"of'*suit schedule property.
the.d'efe._1i1_(1€1nt utilised the entire credit facility, did' repay-.l0an as agreed. At the time of borrowing. V.,vplaintigffhad executed a letter agreeing to clear the loan 'monthly installment of Rs.3,600/- and last at Rs.4,000/--. Since the defendant failed to repay 4?
h the installments, plaintiff issued legal notice on LVL1 20.10.1990. After the said notice defendant attended a meeting convened by plaintiff in its office on 08.ll.ji9'90;~~.VV In the said meeting, he refused to commit himself of loan and also to execute ackn.oW}edgn*;'.ent'" lddeébt '£901? » _ outstanding loan amount. Hence suit Zforlrecoviery against him in the Court of Cwiviftiudge JMFc',d' Chjkkaballapur, for the reason" firnortgaged. suit schedule property is situated' of the said Court.
5. In served, he filed written statement:.._AadInitting= of loan for Rs.1,30,000/~ and execution of Note and several other documents in ".QQIlIl€C't§:0I10f'5.Vith lithe' said loan transaction. It is his defence executed by him are printed forms with _ V in it, the said blanks were not filed with material pertaining to loan suit transaction. They blank at the time he executed the said documents. filled up subsequently by plaintiiffs officers without "-«hVi's"'l<nowledge. Therefore they are void and unenforceable "\a-"i..z"r documents. Initially in the written statement he admitted delivery of documents to plaintiff and executionsof-«4..lletter describing as the letter evidencing deposit of Further, it is also his case that at .th.e__ti1ngemof'e_§;ecutionu._of > _ those documents, schedule "A" and":."B°f'_'; the"s_aid" lette-rpvias blank, which according to hiniV__is....filledv~ up Hence mortgage is vitiatedl no consideration "wa.s'gpassed on to him under the Demand also contended that he has not in respect of M / s.AdaD jolt to repay the loan extended to. having attended the meeting on premises, state that he refused to execute acknowleglgrnent of debt, as he is not liabie to repaytitheiloan. t the Court below framed the following '"~issues:---.__ " llwhether defendant proves that his signatures to suit documents like promote etc., were obtained on blank papers?
"'*"\
2. Whether defendant proves that suit pronote was not supported by consideration?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that has mortgaged the suit" '--propert§}l"V:.tQV' plaintiff? ' ' W '
4. Whether there is cau.se~.,_of at:ti__o11._fo.r suit? is " W
5. Whether plaintiff" decree for recoveryeof money pi'ayed.foffgidyd'' ''
6. Whethfer i"s~..eri-titled__to'Hrirelizninary Z detcreiei; for it ' - 'schedule property, j'sh0tilld._:s'u_ec'eed in the suit?
7. _ _ W1o;etl1er.plaii3:ti'ff"llis entitled to the reliefs ' :1_fI1'ayed' f0r?. ..... .. » Q relief and decree?
two additional issues were also framed, ' " ~ 5 1 which are as under:
11." Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit?
"""\
2. Is the plaintiff property represented in the suit?
8. Thereafter the matter went into trial. The examined two witnesses, one V.Jaganathan as...«P,"_'»'lf:,_'1ljjaild another iVl.S.Ganeshamurthy as P.W.2. from service, he was not available fopr,pc:oss':',exaininat,ion, hence his evidence was eschewed. In' the E;eio'2\7:L*, plaintiff produced and marked d,o'c.1,iIr1,ents :Ef;xs.P--1 to 11-19. On behalf of thAe._"':"def;en(ian't-,_'».,de~fendaI1t examined himself as D.W.1 and hehalf of Court, eight doctimentsv 'l as Exs.C--1 to C-8. On appreciation ldocumentaxy evidence and also v,.p!.eading5s 1fecor"ci,«.thevCourt below answered Issue Nos.1 and "in. _the*n'e§§:ative, Issue Nos.3 to 7 and additional Issue affirmative and consequently decreed the in tevfiI3.sV of Issue No.8 decreeing plaintiffs suit for of Rs.1,30,000/-- with interest at 16.55% with . rests from the date of suit transaction till the date of ""7 institution of suit and with simple interest at 20% pa, on Rs.1,30,000/« from the date of suit till realisationVii9o:n1_V the defendant personally as Well as on the security property.
9. Being aggrieved by the Judgment a-nd3I5ecr4e'e'; l preferred the appeal on hand 'on the grounds;:.., Judgment and Decree _passed__i"'Ln_ xthe vvfibelow is erroneous, the rate of -Vague, uncertain and ambiguous and__ also" any basis of agreement or Proiriissory Note, Ex.P«1 is void dovcunientii conditions the same is illegal and inadxnissilzie iripevidcncefi The bank has failed to examine :_.«'atleast._':d:1e_ the Aattestors of Ex..P~l, there is failure on the 'th_e'.to produce title deeds of defendant to suit 'dd>....v.,schedu_le« which are alleged to be deposited with and claim to be in their custody. The alleged loan aIVnoun_ta'as agreed was neither paid to him nor released to his "account. Hence Ex.P--l is not supported by consideration and '*1 that Ex.P--3 letter of confirmation of deposit of title deeds is incomplete and inadmissible in evidence.
10. That the Court in which the suit jurisdiction to try the suit. The Cou:.*tllli)el'ow"~has 97 note that all the installments of 1ean"u?ansae::'en 1 ha.jd'~.r1et_ fallen due as on the date of "the suit, accounts maintained Ex.P--5 is illegal, entries made therein there are illegal debits to per Ex.P--19 since the amount of:: paid to him, it was paid to the account' ofV'V[Pizt'.) Limited. The alleged cause of action, has-. at" time of execution of Demand EX'. P.:_1.. at Bangalore, since money due under 'Vletter depositing title deeds creating mortgage of the .v.Vpropertj?lin of the bank, the suit should have been filed and not in Chikkaballapur. Therefore there is 4«e1fi-"or.infjurisdiction. It is also his case that there cannot be h "'-tnlovrtgage without existence of debt. Since plaintiff failed to W:
prove sanction of loan of Rs.1,30,000/- to him, there 'cannot be claim for mortgage of his property by deposit of titlekleeds, that the evidence led by plaintiff is contrary and since all the documents on which signaturyes-Twere ' . were blank, he is not liable to pay
11. In this appeal, notice was .serye'd plaintiff, who is respondent herein ;Vientir_e.,gLower Court Records was secured. On going the Judgment and the grounds points arise for consideration: _ . '
1. below is justified in decreeing the the plaintiff awarding at l8.fi5% with quarterly rests ' it,."fro;m theddate of suit till realisation and _ interest at 20% pa?
the Court below is justified in that the plaintiff is entitled to "realise the suit schedule claim both personally and as well as against the security of the suit schedule property? H 3. What order?
Rig.' ii
12. Heard the counsel for appeliant and respondents. Perused the entire Lower Court Record the pleadings, orai and documentaiy evidence d the parties and also the impugried 4' ire- appreciation of the same. this.*C-Qurt 'proceeds. to '.Vat;_swer aforesaid point Nos.i and 2 -consideratiorii, in the affirmative, for the followiriétfi
13. The statement has admitted that he has executtefddernand promissor_y note for a sum of Rs.1,3Q_',OO_0Vf--_ h:d#fa{fg;ur of the plaintiff bank, which is at 'He having executed Ex.P--3, which is t'h._e»docuIn,ent 1iei1.e_Cting his intention to deposit title deeds of suit in favour of the bank to provide securitgf repayrnent of loan amount. However, the K'c?é1'tter1ti_onVVVof the defendant is that the said documents were b1'ar1i; tiavhen he executed the same and as such they are not 'kaididttdocuments and hence it wouid not enure to the benefit "*1 12 of plaintiff. Such a contention of the defendant __is not acceptable. Admittedly, Ex.P--l is executed on 1.5.:Q?,>.t1.988 and Ex.P--3 on 15.02.1988. The suit is filed nearly after three years. The defendant _-'bdelirig . doctor in Medicine and an educated would consequence of affixing his sig_n~atures~ on with his experience as a. ».:practitio1ie'r._Apfor over two decades, his contention of the contents of the said docuizieiits same in blank is rightly not beliexied defence taken by him in the and baseless. In his anxievty to "liability, he has challenged the authority of 'tljie pei"son. has signed the plaint and also _..the where is instituted as not the place having The Court below has rightly held the said defendant quoting relevant provision of V Code Ciyfl"?rocedure, which deals with the execution and of pleadings and also Sections 16 and 20 of Code It -of Ci\'fil'A:Procedure regarding the place of shing in the matters, "where suit is based on promote and mortgage. Admittedly the '''''"I..
13 defendant is resident of Chikkaballapur and that the suit schedule properties are also situated in' the Therefore, there is no justiiication in the defendant regarding institution of the...suit by/'piaiiitifivia Court at Chikkaballapur. Further, 'it defendant having executed EXs§l?_¥'1... yeah l9i88V:i' and having not contended that x:sigIiatures'* talgeniby him is on the blank forms till of his written statement in the i99'5'.-- after seven years clearly discloseiiis' it to the notice of the Court of documents on blank sheets. ltis O.I1lL',Ai,V;a'll1V". get over his liability to the suit claim. The contengtion t-hetdefendant that he does not know FM./s. Aeiape-a>vt.j' ~ in which he is the Managing
-::the said company having all its credit the plaintiff bank is clearly indicative of the 'fact that tlieidetence taken by him is flimsy and without any Even in the cross examination of P.W.1, who is acquainted with the defendant, stated that the 'defendant is the Managing Director of M/ s. Adap (Pvt) °""'l Limited and he has interacted with the officials of the bank in connection with all the credit facilities of the that with the said personal association bank, he has approached and persuaded thern"i'orl'_s.a;i'ictiori. t suit loan in his individual na1ne;;~.' 'i'Iett_ér~ Thy defendant, which is at Ex. 1 signed ' as L' Managing Director of the he state that the said loan note is sanctioned in his for the business of the company: it reiterate that the plaintiff being should provide complete need' capital and also state that the said DP. loaf: is to utilize the same as margin money..«.i.'i'he contents of this letter written by defendant as of M/ s. Adap {PVt.) Limited strengthen the p M.S.Ganesharnurthy. It is also seen Vtiiat the ci-efendant initially having accepted that the entire title deed of the suit schedule property was l;en'd.efed by him to the bank along with the opinion of the l advocate, Eater turned around and say that he has not "'"'\ 15 deposited the documents as security for his loan. Whereas the orai and documentary evidence available on record eiearly contradict the statement of defendant and the by defendant also does not support his..own c'as'e;:: » of the above, the Court below has". held against the defendant and in favour of the decreed the suit.
14. The defendant in }iig.,:_§or;tei_1tion, has relied upon the followiriggrnentsz
1) AIR 19963356 ~--
K.P. O. Moideenlsffutty' 'Haj ee, Vs. Pappu Manjooifan' iandppanother In the judgrnendtptthe defendant has relied upon the {ratio dovvn by the"-fi;p'ex Court with reference to proving of Proniishsory'-§fote,.s_which reads as under:
. would thus be clear that when the A. suit: is based on pronote, and promissory " ~_ tnote is proved to have been executed. Section 118(a) raises the presumption, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory ' 'Wt 16 note was made for consideration. That __ initial presumption raised under Sections-.44"i._ 118(a) becomes unavailable when fthe; "
plaintiff himself pleads in the plaint diflcr:e11te~.. Vi"
considerations. if he pleads' that" 4' Promissory note is sulfibozfteri» 'DY' a"
consideration as recited in the" negotiable instrument and the eifideiice adduced support thereof, the --__is o:"1'*the defendant to disapprove A. promissory note is not supported' b3zp"»ccon':_3ideration or different '¢;:,11s:ae:ai:olii one recited _V did pass. If that'"c'0iisidei%at.ionis no't~~v"alid in law nor enforceable' 'Court would! consider whetherl the V "pronote is supported by sralid clonvsiderationh or legally enforceable V-',c...coiisideraiion;' """ 'Take for instance, a pronote ~ a time-barred debt. It is still a All"T.-..valid'.'C0n§3ideration. The falsity of the plea of plaintiff also would be a factor to be considered by the Court. The burden of '.'proof is of academic interest when the evidence was adduced by the parties. The Court is required to examine the 'evidence """'\ 17 and consider whether the suit as pleaded in the plajnt has been established and the suit. requires to be decreed or dismissed."
21) AIR 1961 SUPREME COURT 1316 e_ Kundan La} Railaraxn Vs. ' Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bo'mba_$I. "5. This section ~s9¢g1%i1 rule of evidence ~..._ 2 ' negotiable instmments. The of law and thereunder inter aiia, tiiafithe-Tnegotiable'---"nisujiment or the endo_rsen:ient endorsed for consideiration_;:"~In' it throws the burden of 'proof "consideration on the rnaker4""theV-. r1o_te'"or the endorser, as the rna}rA"be,i ..... _.The question is, how the d :vbuV:rd¢I1vA:V"c.an be discharged? The rules of to burden of proof are A in Chapter VII of the Evidence Act. '1"h_e"; phrase "burden of proof" has two AA Wrneanings mm one the burden of proof as a ti' 'rnatter of law and pleading and the other the burden of establishing a case; the former is ""1.
18 fixed as a question of law on the basis of the pleadings and is unchanged during entire trial, whereas the latter is it constant but shifts as soon as L' i adduces sufficient evidence"' "to raisejii'-v'a presumption in his favour}; evidence required to shift the buurdeniii neect" not"
necessariiy be direct evidence, documentary evidence .of adinissions 'inade by opposite i' 'comprise circumstantiai evideiice of law or ::ir~"i'_o .iiiustrate_4' this doctrine worksgin a suit on a 'V':f§tote'§"..AV"'- S.101 of the Evidence desires any Court to giveijt-.1dgment legal right or liability zciependen-t_on"'the existence of facts which he ?:s._asscrts,t_must"'p1*ove that those facts exist".
' fifherefore; 'the burden initially rests on the vvho has to prove that the """-prornlssiory note was executed by the _ defendant. As soon as the execution of the V._pfipron1issory note is proved, the rule of presumption laid down in S.118 of the Negotiable instruments Act helps him to W1 shift the burden to the other side. The burden of proof as a question of law rests,,,_7._u'_"e._ therefore, on the plaintiff; but as soon as;~th_«' "
execution is proved, S.118 of the Nego%iable~.,"
Instruments Act imposes V-an duty on' 4' Court to raise a presumption A.7€1isti»favour"
that the said instrument eras" rrrarle . consideration. This prestrniption' the burden of proof jr1..t11e secon'dhs"ense,tthatis, the burden of shifts to the defendant. ',F'£1e» '_ lfiadduce direct «prove .that"V'thew~'prorz1issory note "consideration, ad§d11ce'd'*-acceptable evidence, the burderi "-to' the plaintiff, and so on.' V.._p4'i'he' '.may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and, if the A relied upon are compelling, _vvth,,¢'«burden may likewise Shift agam to the He may also rely upon presurnptions of act, for instance those n1,e_ntioned in 8.114 and otger sections of the it «.,_Evidence Act. Under S. 1191 of the EV1Ci€I1C€ "Act, "The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks l1ke1y,to have WW 20 happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in relation to the facts of the particular Illustration (g) to that section 4' Court may presume that could be and is not' produced" woz.1lld,pA . produced, be unfavourable» to the "'iperslon who withholds it.' ~13 'Who he had sold certain _,good§;u?to.l:'t?ie.lV:defendant and that apapromisso'r§f"not.e'»,yvifa..s_ as consideratio§.1i'h he is in possession' ' the account books to show pos's'esslon of the goods see and lwas effected for a partieuiar consideration, should produce the said account books, for he is in possession of ,saine and""ti1'e defendant certainly cannot
-ibei..,4e;:pecte_d to produce his documents. In A' =,ithose'_~-._ci;éfclumstances, if such a relevant evi_,deii~ce is withheld by the plaintiff, S.114 enables the Court to draw a presumption to .,F""A_t,he effect that, if produced, the said accounts would be unfavourable to the plaintiff. This presumption, if raised by a "*1 Court, can under certain circumstances ._ rebut the presumption of law raised under._W_""i 55.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Briefly stated, the burden of proof shifted by presumptions of V1-raw-or 4' presumptions of law or presi1mptio'nsii»of'~factV' may be rebutted not' -oniy di1"C-cit circumstantial evidence presumptions of Iiaw not concerned here I ' A irrebuttable presumptions of1aw';»'t« if V it it i.
iii) AIR 1999' loos '--
Bharatfietrijei Druni Manufacturing Company Vs. Amm Chand. _PayrVeia1;».,a" ' it ' 2i}'pon''*co1isideration of various yjudgmeiitié noted hereinabove, the fposiition o'fV"1aw----«which emerges is that once AV' " .. executi.on of the promissory note is admitted, :f):?est;':'iiption under Section 1i8(a) would .t}1at it is supported by consideration. Sttcii a presumption is rebuttabie. The Vi"'~«defendant can prove the non--existence of ' "consideration by raising a probabie defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged "ti 22 the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or, doubtful or the same was illegal, the would shift to the plaintiff who' will.__:"oeV*-.:
obliged to prove it as a matteréof 4' upon Its failure to prove vi:oul,_d .ent£tle'°-e him to the grant of relief on thehbasis negotiable instrurnent. 'Fi1e"burden.upon defendant of proving thealnongelxistence 'of. the consideration Vibe "~.eitl'1er or by bringing on record..:._tlr1e'l._lprejiondsrgnce of probabilitielsglh' t0 'H516 circurnstance's"duper: he relies. In entitled under lavv to 'the 'evidence led in the case the plaintiff as well. In case, vvhere' the 'defendant fails to discharge v-tithes'-sinitial onu's"'of proof by showing the non» the consideration, the plaintiff be held entitled to the ""4-benefit of presumption arising under Section 1l3t(la) in his favour. The Court may not .."i1_r1sist upon the defendant to disprove the eidstence of consideration by leading direct evidence as existence of negative evidence is 'V1 neither possible nor contemplated and even if led is to be seen with a doubt. The denial of the passing of the considerat~icn_'VV~.'__'__i"".j' apparently does not appear to defence. Something whichis"probablexhasll' 4' to be brought on record benefit of shifting the onus olfizroving plaintiff. To disprove Vpresurdliption the defendant has to zbringyon tfecdmp such"fac'ts and circumstances ; it I V iivcortsideration of which. the Court may. :either_"that the consideration'. " or? its non-
existence 1730 titliat a prudent ctrcurnstances of the case, "the 'plea that it did not exist.'-,1' in the close expressed by the Full . ot"the"Rajasthan High Court and ' " High Court in this regard."
_"""'iV) ma 19{}8:f5(lPREME COURT 1406 M» V Centrai Bureau of Investigation Vs. nV.C.Shuk1a and others.
"34. The rationale behind admissibility of parties' books of account as evidence is that the regularity of habit, the "W1 24 difficulty of falsification and the fair certainly of ultimate detection give them in a sufficient degree a probability of trustworthines's.VV"':'4:'-..l"- (Wigmore on evidence 1546). it"
however, an element of self... ir1te1'_est" "
partisanship of the entrant a--tperson'~»
-- behind whose backprtand Without knowledge the entry is made ~ liableucanriotln be ruled out the additioria1"'safe°g'uard insistence upon evidence to fasten hirn been provided ;~fo'i-3. Section: ..incorporating the shall not alone bevt"'siifificient::f:-gto person with lialbility'. '' * up 'v,Al'~--econspectus of the above p»»'éi_eci'sions IAI18.k_§_Spit evident that even correct A andaiithentic entries in books of account it independent evidence of their 'A fix a liability upon a person.
Keeping in view the above principles, even if " 'iavve proceed on the assumption that the 'entries made in MR7} /91 are correct and the entries in the other books and loose W sheets (which we have already found to be not admissible in evidence under Section 34} are admissible under Section 9 of the support an inference about the forrn.ersf'_i'». it correctness still those sufficient to charge. Shri Shukla with the accusations Ieveiied them for there is not aunyyiiota indetiendengt evidence in supp0'1*t_&thei'eof.xr.:' -that view "of the matter we need' into or decide upon the" ; by Mr.AItaf this '---«sjuffice it to say "of the four witnesses, receipts of the pa"yInen'tsV '' against them in 91, canrat be proof of reliability ofthe entries"'so"'far they are concerned and V-':a..no:§.,.oth.ers. H In""other words, the statements
---above witnesses cannot be evidence under Section 34 as '""'-agair1st<:"'the above two respondents. So far T Advani is concerned Section 34 , vfould not come in aid of the prosecution for 'another reason also. According to the prosecution case itself his name finds place 'vi 26 only in one of the loose sheets (Sheet No.8) _ and not in MR.'?1/91. Resultantly, in of our earlier discussion. Section 34 at all be pressed into service against . '"1
15. In the instant case, defendantill has clearly admitted the execution consideration receipt, though stated some were blank, he has faiied to by adducing acceptable evidence: the defendant also admitted of deposit of title deeds toppcreaterniortgagei of suit schedule property the loan that is received by him. In the light of .thisA;~-glefendant cannot raise the objection suitis on the document which are not e:»{eeuiV.ed the said documents were executed in consideration has passed thereon and also 'Vixjthat xestablvishing the correctness or otherwise of the same is under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, cannot ':b'e..aecepted. Further the aforesaid judgments, wherein the '*1 Aovf 28 well reasoned Judgment and Decree passed by the___ Court below holding that the plaintiff is entitled to reeoveraof Rs.1,30,000/~ from the defendant with interest a with quarterly rests from the date of till, theft' date of institution of suit and w:md smlp1¢ V p.a., on Rs.1,30,000/~ from the-lidate of from the defendant persozaally as" onéléthe 'security of mortgaged property.
17. Accordingly: lV)VyWV--ti1e defendant is dismissed, Witho1;t"a:1y ordetjlas' tqcosts.