Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The 1st Defendant remained ex parte. The 2nd Defendant filed the written statement contending that the 1st defendant made an application for credit facility on 25-8-1985. He obtained loan application from the plaintiff and filled the same in his own hand with all particulars at the house of the 2nd defendant. He mentioned the names of Defendants 2 and 3 in the said application. It was only after the plaintiff considered the application and agreed to provide credit facilities to the 1st defendant, he approached her at the instance of her husband. It is further contended that encumbrance certificate was secured at the instance of the plaintiff and title deeds of the property were sent to the plaintiff to enable him to seek opinion from its Counsel regarding the validity of the title deeds. It is also contended that the plaintiff approached her and informed that the 1st defendant applied for credit facility for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as per his application and that she should provide her property as security for the said amount. The 2nd defendant told the plaintiff that she was willing to offer her property as security only to an extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- if only the plaintiff agreed to reduce the terms and conditions of the contract in writing. Thereupon, the plaintiff brought two printed forms and took her signatures on several other stamp printed and typed written forms on 2-9-1985 itself. The plaintiffs Counsel gave his opinion and asked the plaintiff to retain the title deeds that were given for legal opinion on the same day. It is further contended that the plaintiff while entering into the agreement took her signatures on printed letter of lien on 2-9-1985 itself and while taking her signatures in the agreement of guarantee the plaintiff took her signature in the second form of agreement of guarantee on the plea that the duplicate form was to be sent to the Central Office for record as such the duplicate form would be filled up for clarity in type writing in accordance with the original form in which the 2nd defendant had specified her limit of liability. It is also further alleged that the plaintiff took signatures on several other stamped and printed and type written formats on 2-9-1985 itself, the day on which the contract of bargain and the deposit of title deeds with the plaintiff were simultaneously made evidencing a single transaction. The 2nd defendant denied the allegation about the letter dated 3-10-1985 containing her intention of creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. It is also contended that the transaction, which has been reduced into writing, namely, agreement of guarantee, requires registration as it creates interest in the immovable property. It is also contended that the whole suit is based on invalid and manipulated documents and sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The 3rd defendant while adopting the contentions of the 2nd defendant, inter alia, contends that there was collusion in between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant to obtain a fraudulent decree by manipulating several documents. It is also contended that he is an illiterate and he has learnt only to put his signature in English. All the documents were executed in the house of his brother only. He denied about the execution of the agreement of guarantee in favour of the 2nd defendant on 30-9-1985 and execution of letter of lien etc. It is contended that the plaintiff was on the look out for a suitable building to locate its branch and there was a proposal by the plaintiff to take the building for the said purpose as his brother was constructing on Prakasham High Road, Chittoor. In this connection, the staff of the plaintiff was visiting the house and office of his brother and due to that he got acquaintance with the staff of the plaintiff. While so, in 1986 when he went to the plaintiff bank, the plaintiff showed a printed format in English in which he found the signature of the 2nd defendant and made him to believe that the 2nd defendant had applied for a loan and that his signatures were required to process her loan application and on such misrepresentation his signatures were also obtained in the said format. Since there was no space left, he has to sign below the signatures of the 2nd Defendant and his signatures were obtained with defficulty over and above the signatures of the 2nd Defendant in the space left between the contents of the format and the signatures of the 2nd Defendant. It is also contended that there was no intention of creating a valid equitable mortgage and created a charge over the same by way of security. It was a mystery how the documents had come into the possession of the plaintiff. He never gave any letter on 3-10-1985 as alleged confirming his intention of creating an equitable mortgage by the deposit of title deeds on 1-10-1985. He has absolutely no knowledge as to how the encumbrance certificates were obtained relating to his property. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

11. Coming to the pleadings of the 3rd defendant, the 3rd defendant also adopts the alleged plea of fraudulent manipulation and collusion in between the plaintiff and the 1st Defendant while adopting the written statement filed by the 2nd Defendant. He has contended of only putting his signatures in English. He was living with his brother at Santhapet during the relevant period and all the documents, were executed in the house of his brother only. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff frequently visiting the house of his brother as he was constructing a building at Prakasam High Road, Chittoor and that the plaintiff had a proposal to take the building for the bank. It is also the case of the 3rd defendant that in 1986 when the Branch Manager sent for him and on his going to the Bank the plaintiff showed printed format in English in which he found the signatures of the 2nd defendant and made him to believe that the 2nd defendant had applied for a loan to the bank and that his signatures were required to process her loan application and on such fraudulent misrepresentation his signatures were obtained in the said format in which he found the signatures of the 2nd defendant. He pleads that he was helping his sister-in-law by putting his signatures on various papers. He has expressed his ignorance as to how the documents have come into the possession of the plaintiff. He died about giving any letter of lien on 3-10-1985. He has asserted that he has no intention to create equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 1-10-1985. In the above scenario the evidence placed has to be examined. P.W.1 is the Manager of Indian Bank at Chittoor Branch, who worked from June, 1984 to September, 1986, speaks about the application given by the first defendant for credit facility for Rs. 40,00,000/-. He has only produced Ex.A-1 copy of the application. It is also his version that additional security belonging to Defendants 2 and 3 is mentioned in Ex.A-1(a). According to him, Ex.A-2 is the document filed by the first defendant showing his assets and liabilities. Similarly, Ex.A-3 is the document showing the assets and liabilities of the 3rd defendant. Ex.A-4 is the similar document of the assets and liabilities of the 2nd defendant. It is mainly contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the original documents have been suppressed, which are material, and hence they have to be nonsuited for suppression of the important documents. He has placed reliance on the decisions reported in N. Eranna Rao v. Vitta Dodda Hanumanthappa Subbayya Setty and Co., , Brahmdeo Narain Singh v. Members of the Notified Area Committee, , and Gurnam Singh and Ors. v. Surjit Singh and Ors., . The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decisions clearly indicate that adverse inference is justified to be drawn for the suppression of the documents when the party in possession does not produce the originals. The entire contentions of the respondents concentrated mainly on the discrepancies found in the said application. No doubt, originals are not produced. The plaintiff has not made out a case for letting in secondary evidence. It is not the case that originals are not available in their office. It is the case of the 2nd defendant that D.1 has applied for loan and the applications are filled up at their house. The 2nd defendant is the wife of Member of Parliament. The 3rd defendant is the Municipal Chairman. P.W.1 is an officer in respect of a particular branch. Is he capable of manipulating the documents in respect of politicians? Even according to the evidence of D.W.1 he stood as guarantor for others and suits were filed by other banks against him. If the cumulative effect of these circumstances including the pleadings have taken into consideration, it makes clear that the first defendant applied for loan and Defendants 2 and 3 in all probability offered security and handed over title deeds. Even according to the evidence of D.W.1 in February or March, 1986 the bank people obtained his signatures on certain documents making him to believe that his sister-in-law had applied for a loan. According to him he was doing wine business since two years and studied up to 6th class in Tamil medium. He did excise contracts for two years. He expressed his ignorance about the written statement filed by his sister-in-law. He did not give any instructions to his Counsel to file a memo adopting the written statement of D-2. His Counsel said not read over and explain the contents of written statement filed by him on his behalf. He admits that he stood as guarantor to Ramachandra Gupta for rupees ninety lakhs loan. He admits about receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff bank. The entire evidence goes to show that he signed on the documents in English. His complaint is that the documents are not read over to him at the time of taking signatures. It is too much to contend that he has signed on seeing the signatures of his sister-in-law, who is said to have applied for the loan. This cannot be believed since he is an arrack contractor and also stood as guarantor to others for obtaining loans from the banks. It is improbable for the bank officials to manipulate the documents in collusion with the first defendant. If the conduct of the defendants is judged, it is clear that notice has been issued by the bank under Exhibits A17 and A-19 and no reply has been given by the defendants. The said conduct or failure to give reply would only go to show that it was against the conduct of a prudent person to keep silent when the documents were manipulated and fraud was played. Moreover, the failure to initiate action immediately against the bank officials for manipulation will throw doubt about the different versions given out by D.W.1. The version of D.W.1 is not consistent when compared with the documentary evidence. No doubt the application forms cannot be looked into for failure to make out the case for admission of secondary evidence and there is no need to judge the said inadmissible documents. In the absence of production of originals, one cannot make a cryptic analysis of those documents. Moreover, the 3rd Defendant has adopted the statement of the 2nd defendant and she has admitted in her own pleadings that the documents were executed at her house and the loan application was presented at the house. In the light of the said evidence, it can safely be taken that the first defendant has approached the bank for loan and Defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors.

13. When some of the signatures are admitted by one of the defendants, it is for the other defendants to show as to how and in what circumstances the documents are manipulated. The 2nd defendant is not prepared to go into the witness box and D.W.1 contends that on seeing the signatures of his sister-in-law he signed on the documents as she was applying for loan. P.W.1 spoke to the execution of those documents. As per the evidence of P.W.1, D.W.2 also executed letter of confirmation of equitable mortgage. Is it possible for the bank officials to secure sale deeds without being handed over? Those documents were available with Defendants 2 and 3 only. Moreover, the first defendant was a stranger and he could not have access to the title deeds of Defendants 2 and 3. It is also clear that the 2nd Defendant has not offered any explanation for the possession of those registered title deeds. D.W.1 states that the title deeds are with his brother. He does not know how they have reached the bank. D.W.1 is not prepared to speak the truth. His conduct shows that he was in the habit of standing as guarantee for several loans and suits are also filed by the banks for realization of the amounts. Even according to him, he can speak Telugu and English, but he cannot read them. The explanation given by him is that they have acquaintance with the bank people who used to visit his brother's house where he is staying. In that connection, he got acquaintance. No explanation is forthcoming as to how the bank came into possession. That can be best explained only if the version of P.W.1 is accepted, namely, deposit of title deeds. It is also clear that legal advice was taken at the first instance and later confirmation letters were given to P.W.1. The conduct of non-issuing of reply to the registered notice and remaining silent in spite of loan application being taken on Sunday only show that discretion has been exercised by the bank officials for sanctioning of loan. The various defects pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents regarding the loan application cannot in any way affect the transactions, namely, sanctioning of loan and accepting of title deeds as security for the loan by creating equitable mortgage. The acquaintance in between D.W.1 and the bank officials as spoken to and D.W.1 admitting his signatures on the bonds and the admission of the 2nd defendant in her written statement that she has agreed to stand as guarantor only for Rs. 10,00,000/- as well as giving the title deeds will only show and probabilise that they executed guarantee deeds and Defendants 2 and 3 are prepared to stand as sureties. Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 says that where a person delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title to immovable property with intent to create a security thereon, the transaction is called a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The said provision of the Act makes it clear that the deposit can be made personally or constructive. In view of the same, we are of considered view that the title deeds were handed over along with loan application by mentioning the particulars of properties offered as security. Subsequently, the record shows that as per the evidence of P.W.1 they were referred to legal opinion and the 2nd defendant agreed to stand as guarantor for Rs. 10,00,000/- as security. What is culled out from the evidence of D.W.1 is that the 1st defendant requisitioned the bank officials to their house and handed over the loan application. The non-filing of written statement by D-1 cannot lead to the conclusion that there was collusion. The alleged collusion canvassed by the defendants have no legs to stand in view of the fact that the 2nd defendant admitted in the written statement about presenting the application by the first defendant. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge has carried away with the defects noticed in the loan application and also presenting the application to the Manager on a Sunday. They become insignificant since the 2nd defendant has admitted in the written statement about presenting of loan application to the bank seeking for loan and standing as guarantor for the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The evidence of D.W.1 does not inspire confidence from the fact that he expressed ignorance of his title deeds themselves being in the hands of bank officials. It goes contra to his own pleadings. The alleged fraudulent misrepresentation said to have been made is not clearly mentioned in his evidence. The details of fraud are not pleaded. The date of fraud, the place of fraud and the manner of playing fraud are not spoken to in detail in D.W.1's evidence. Be that as it may, D.W.1 is not a layman. He is a person holding a responsible post. He has obtained loans from the banks as Chairman of the Municipality. He has not issued any reply when deposit of title deeds is alleged in the registered notice. In the light of the above circumstances, if the evidence is to be judged, it can be safely taken that he is not speaking truth. He is trying to hide the truth. In that view of the matter, we are of considered view that the version given out by P.W.1 rendered along with the non-issue of a reply to the notice only indicates the alleged acceptance of creation of valid mortgage by treating the deposit of title deeds. Moreover, no action was taken against the bank officials for obtaining signatures on blank papers or printed formats. The story given out by D.W.1 cannot be believed as it does not fit into his own evidence and pleading. It goes contra to the pleading of the 2nd Defendant which is also adopted. The above documentary evidence and the conduct of Defendants 2 and 3 indicate and probabilise that they have deposited the title deeds with an intention to stand surety and create mortgage by deposit of title deeds for the loan secured by the first Defendant.