NAMBURI APPALA RAJU Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(APH)-1999-9-20
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 16,1999

NAMBURI APPALA RAJU Appellant
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHEEPURUPALLI Respondents




JUDGEMENT

S.V.Maruthi, J. - (1.)The appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam in O.S. No.5 of 1985 dated 6-9-1991. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff- State Bank of India, Cheepurupalli Branch, filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,14,595-03 ps. from the defendants. The plaint averments in brief are as follows:- The 1st defendant approached the plain tiff-Bank for grant of loan for setting up of a poultry farm in Munisinivalasa, hamlet of Routhupeta Bonduru taluk, Srikakulam District. The plaintiff-Bank advanced a term loan of Rs.1,04,000.00 on the security of first defendant's immovable property. The 2nd defendant was the guarantor. The defendant executed a deed of mortgage and hypothecation in respect of suit debt on the plaint schedule property and the same was registered on 29-11-1973. The agreed rate of interest is 11% per annum with half yearly rests subject to the revision of the interest from time to time. The 1st defendant availed the loan facility to an extent of Rs.76,649-01 ps. The loan debt is repayable in 60 monthly instalments of Rs.1,000.00 with half yearly lumpsum payment of Rs.5,000.00 for eight half years and a final balance payment of Rs.4,000.00 at the end of 9th half year - the first monthly instalment commencing from September,1974. However, an amount of Rs.3,14,595-03 ps. is due as on 23-2-1985. The defendants executed revival letters acknowledging the debt due to the bank on 30-6-1982 in favour of the bank. In spite of repeated demands, the defendants have not discharged the loan. Hence, the suit.
(2.)The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. However, he has admitted that he had approached the plaintiff-Bank for term loan of Rs.1,04,000.00 for setting up a poultry unit at their village under agricultural loans scheme and that the loan was sanctioned for which he had executed a mortgage deed dated 29-11-1973 mortgaging Ac.1.80 cts. of dry land situated in plot No.279 and S,No.31 of Maminivalasa village. He has admitted that the 2nd defendant is the guarantor for the loan transaction. The 2nd defendant filed a memo adopting the written statement of the 1st defendant. It is not necessary to refer to the other averments in the plaint as well as in the written statement for the purpose of disposing of the appeal.
"(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for personal decree for the suit amount against the 2nd defendant as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount by sale of the plaint-schedule mentioned properties? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the balance amount of decree debt if any from the 1st defendant personally? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for subsequent interest at 14.5% with half yearly rests as prayed for? (5) Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? (6) Whether the defendants are not liable to pay interest as calculated by the plaintiff? (7) Whether the 2nd defendant's liability is barred by time? (8) Whether the defendants are entitled for exemplary costs? (9) To what relief ?

(3.)The plaintiff-Bank examined 7 witnesses and marked Exs.A-1 to A-25 while the 1st defendant is examined as D.W.I and no exhibits were marked on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit with 12% interest from the date of the suit till the date of payment.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.