Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
United Commercial Bank Body Corporate ... vs Kandi Ramu Naidu (Died) Per L.Rs. And ... on 1 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(5)ALT619
Author: I. Venkatanarayana
Bench: I. Venkatanarayana
JUDGMENT I. Venkatanarayana, J.
1. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. The plaintiff-nationalised Bank filed O.S. No. 47/1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, at Vizainagaram for recovery of Rs. 39,241-28 Ps. being the agricultural loan. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to in accordance with their status in the suit.
2. As per the plaint averments, the defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,050/- and the loan was alleged to have been obtained by defendants 1 to4onexecutingcertaindocuments in favour of the plain tiff. The agricultural loan agreement has been executed by the first defendant for himself and his minor sons i.e., defendants 2 to 4 and in pursuance thereof first defendant executed registered mortgage deed on 20-7-1970 in favour of the plaintiff for the said sum. Defendants 1 to 4 mortgaged the plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff-Bank and subsequently on 25-7-1970 the plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the first defendant towards crop loan, Rs. 5,250/-towards well loan and Rs. 2,800/- towards oil engine loan, making it a total of Rs. 18,050/-. Defendants 5 and 6 stood as guarantors in respect of the suit loan. Accordingly they executed guarantee agreement in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently the said defendants confirmed the said loan amounts, and that defendant No. 1 operated the account in respect of the suit loan transaction
3. Defendant No. 1 remained ex parte. Defendant No. 3 filed written statement which was adopted by defendants 2 and 4 by filing joint memo. Defendants 5 and 6 also remained ex parte. It is the case of defendant No. 3 that the interest claimed is usurious and that they being the agriculturists, are entitled to the relief under the Agriculturists Relief Act (Act IV of 1938). They also contended that the minors ought to have been made parties at the time of filing of the suit as they attained majority.
4. In this case reserving the judgment, the trial Court suo motu reopened the matter and heard the parties by framing the appropriate issues. The trial Court dismissed the suit wholly on the ground that the plaintiff has tailed to prove Ex. A-1. P.W.1 who is the Agricultural Field Officer oi the plaintiff bank, examined himself and in his chief-examination he deposed about the loan and got the documents Exs. A-1 to A-25 marked. In his cross-examination P.W.1 stated that the was not the Field Officer at the time of suit loan transaction and that he does not know personally of any document executed by defendants or of the payments made by them. Based on this, the trial Court has concluded that the plaintiff has failed to prove the documents and dismissed the suit holding that there is no sufficient legal proof. I must state that this view is totally wrong. The Field Officer who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-bank would not have got personal knowledge since the other officer would have advanced the loan amount. The Nationalised Bank consists of several officers who will be holding the charge from time to time in the branches. Merely because the loan documents were not signed in his presence and he was not the Officer at that time, it does not mean that the documents have not been proved. The trial Court has totally misdirected the enquiry and failed to understand that it is not necessary that the same Field Officer who advanced loans, should depose before the Court. Any authorised officer can speak about execution of the documents.
5. I, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Court and remit the matter back to the trial Court for fresh enquiry. The trial Court shall give the plaintiff-bank a fresh opportunity to prove Exs. A-1 to A-25 by examining the concerned officer and consider the matter afresh within three months from the date of the receipt of the order. The appeal is accordingly allowed and remanded for fresh enquiry. No order as to costs.