Telangana High Court
CRP/2757/2000 of BM CANARA BANK BHONGIR Vs GULAM SIDDIQUI AND ANOTHER on 7 November 2000
SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 2757 of 2000 Date of Judgment: 3.12.2012 Between: M/s. Canara Bank …Petitioner and Gulam Siddiqui and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 2757 of 2000 ORDER: Heard learned counsel on
THE HON’BLE SRIJUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
C.R.P. NO.2757 of 2000
Date of Judgment: 3.12.2012
Between:
M/s. Canara Bank
and
…Petitioner
Gulam Siddiqui and another
..Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRIJUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
C.R.P. NO.2757 of 2000
Heard learned counsel on either side.
The petitioner is the plaintiff who filed a small causesuit No. 24 of 1996 before the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongirseeking to recover an amount of Rs.6,262-60 ps from therespondents/defendants on the basis of apronote/agreement.
While the first defendant is the borrower, the seconddefendant is the guarantor. The plaintiff producedevidence of its bank manager being P.W.1 who producedand marked Exs.A1 to A8 which show that the firstdefendant executed a demand promissory note under Ex.A1, issued revival letter-Ex.A3, while Exs.A4 and A5are the certified copies of loan account and original ledgeraccount respectively maintained by the bank, Ex.A6 is theinterest suspense account and Ex.A7 is the Savings BankAccount of first defendant. The defendants’ defence ismainly of full satisfaction of the suit amount and the receiptof loan is not disputed under promissory note andconsequently the liability to pay the interest thereon. Whiletaking the plea of discharge of the suit amount, the firstdefendant stated that he paid the loan in 1991 and paidinstalments upto 13.11.1995 which, in fact, turned out tobe an excess amount deposited by the first defendantwhich was credited to his savings bank account. TheCourt below framed four issues and out of that, first andsecond issue relate to as to whether the bank is entitled tosuit amount and as to whether the defendant hassuccessfully pleaded the discharge.
The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act raises a strongpresumption in favour of the plaintiff bank with respect toEx.A5-original ledger account maintained by the bankwhich shows the liability recoverable from the firstdefendant. It is also admitted fact that the interest ispayable as per the circular of the Reserve Bank of Indiadated 9.10.1991, which was also marked as Ex.A8. Whileconsidering the first defendant’s plea of discharge, thecourt below has only considered the contentions of thefirst defendant that he had deposited the interest component and consequently an amount of Rs.280/-deposited in excess was credited to his savings bankaccount, thereby the court below came to the conclusionthat no amount is due and payable to the plaintiff bankand dismissed the suit.
The said judgment and decree is under revisionbefore this Court. It is evident from the record and thejudgment of the trial Court itself that any payments madeby a debtor which are not specified would first getadjusted against the interest payable on the loan andaccordingly the part payments made by the plaintiff aspleaded were credited to the interest account and therebythe principal amount of Rs.5,000/- as well as interest of1262-60 ps remained still payable even after adjustmentof all the amounts paid by the first defendant. The Courthas, however, not appreciated that the original statementof account which raises a statutory presumption in favourof the plaintiff bank was not rebutted by any evidence bythe first defendant, but merely taking advantage of thecredit of Rs.280/- to his savings bank account, the firstdefendant claimed that he has discharged the loanamount over and above the liability. Since the statementof account clearly shows the liability against the firstdefendant, the findings of the court below on that aspectare clearly vitiated and perverse. The liability to repay theloan together with interest payable thereon subsists withthe first defendant as long as the terms and conditions of
the loan are not fully discharged. The payments spreadover several years after taking the loan would not enablethe plaintiff to claim full discharge of his liability, whenadmittedly the loan account shows that the loan amount isstill recoverable from the first defendant. The findings ofthe court below being perverse and unsustainable, areliable to be interfered with.
The revision petition is accordingly allowed andS.C.No. 24 of 1996 shall stand decreed as prayed for withcosts.
_________________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
Dt. 3.12.2012KR