STATE BANK OF INDIA vs Mathew T M on 29 July 2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated this the 29th day of July, 2026

TA No.649/2016 (OA No.384/2016) Between

State Bank of India,

Ranni Branch,

Manimalethu Building,

Angadi P.O., Ranni,

Pathanamthitta District.

…Applicant [Applicant was substituted in place of State Bank of Travancore as per order dated 07.06.2017 in IA No.959/2017]

And

T.M.Mathew,

Tharappel House,

Karikkattoor P.O.,

Kottayam District.

…Defendant

This Original Application having been heard on 14.07.2026 in the presence of Advocate Smt.Thankom Mukundakrishnan for the applicant bank and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following: F I N A L O R D E R

This Original Application has been filed under S.19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,63,677/- due under ‘kissan’ gold card account together with future interest thereon @12.95% per annum with half yearly rests plus penal interest @2% per annum from the defendant and by sale of the schedule properties. Facts of the case:

2. The applicant is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and one of its branches at Ranni in Pathanamthitta District.

3. The defendant approached the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore seeking a ‘kissan’ gold card loan of Rs.10 lakhs and a ‘kisan’ credit card loan of Rs.2.50 lakhs for the purpose of land development and agriculture. The bank sanctioned both the loans on 03.08.2010; and the kisan credit card loan of Rs.2.50 lakhs was closed subsequently. Towards security for the loan, the defendant created hypothecation charge over the schedule property and mortgage over ‘B’ schedule item No.1(A) and 1(B) properties and executed memorandum of deposit of title deeds on 03.08.2010. Thereafter, the defendant approached the bank and sought for enhancement of the ‘kissan’ gold card loan to Rs.15 lakhs, which was sanctioned on 08.07.2011. As security for the enhanced facility, the defendant created mortgage over ‘B’ schedule item No.2 property and extended the mortgage already created over ‘B’ schedule item No.1(A) and 1(B) properties. The defendant executed memorandum of deposit of title deed and extension of mortgage on 09.07.2011. After availing the loan, the defendant committed default in repayment and the account became highly irregular. All efforts made by the bank to get the loan account settled have turned futile. Being unable to recover the outstanding dues, the applicant was constrained to file the OA claiming the following reliefs:

(i) To recover the sum of Rs.15,63,677/- together with pendente lite and post-decree interest thereon from the defendant and by sale of the schedule properties;

(ii) To recover the costs, charges and expenses from the defendant;

(iii) To issue Recovery Certificate to the Recovery Officer with a direction to recover the amount and pay it to the applicant bank. Written statement

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments and execution of the loan documents. It is contended inter alia that the defendant had approached the bank seeking a loan for agricultural purpose which was sanctioned. However, the sanction letter or other documents produced in this case were not given to him. The blank documents signed by the defendant were subsequently filled up by the bank to suit its case. The original title deeds were handed over to the bank at the time of applying for the facility but he has not executed the memorandum of deposit of title deeds. It is claimed that the defendant had made substantial payments into the loan account but thereafter he was unable to operate the account regularly due to reasons beyond his control. The amount claimed in the OA is incorrect and the applicant is not entitled to realize the said amount from the defendant. Hence the OA may be dismissed. Proof Affidavit:

5. To establish the claim on behalf of the applicant bank, one Mr.P.M.Bridget, Chief Manager has filed proof affidavit and produced the loan documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A13. The availing of the loan is well established from the documents placed by the applicant bank.

6. The defendant filed counter proof affidavit stating that he, being an uneducated person, was unable to read and understand the contents of the forms and documents got signed by the bank. The bank initiated securitization proceedings against the properties but such proceeding was withdrawn subsequently and informed the defendant as per letter dated 03.06.2016. The applicant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as sought for in this case and they can proceed against only such portion of the immovable properties which is sufficient to realize the amount, if any, due to the bank. The defendant may be given an opportunity to bring third party purchasers for the secured properties and to close the liability. Hence the OA may be dismissed as premature and bereft of bonafides.

7. Heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant bank. The defendant remained absent from the proceeding from 24.07.2019.

8. The sole issue arises for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to get the relief as claimed in this case?

9. On careful consideration of the pleadings and evidence available on record, it appears that there is no dispute with regard to the availing of the subject loan of Rs.15 lakhs and creation of hypothecation charge over the schedule properties and mortgage over ‘B’ schedule properties. Admittedly, there is default in repayment of the loan. Further, the defendant executed revival letter dated 17.03.2014 marked as Ext.A10 acknowledging the liability under the loan account. In all the loan documents the defendant put his signature in English. The defendant has not claimed that he did not understand the documents executed by him. Hence the claim of the defendant is not sustainable in absence of any satisfactory evidence.

10. The documents marked as Exts.A1 to A13 would substantiate the claim put forth by the applicant bank. An amount of Rs.15,63,677/- is outstanding under the kissan gold card account as on 01.05.2016, which is clearly established from the account statements marked as Exts.A11 and A13. In the above circumstance, the applicant is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant and by sale of the security properties. The issue is answered in favour of the applicant.

11. Considering the amount advanced, interest applied, repayments effected and default committed and also the facility granted being an agricultural loan, I am of the view that the applicant bank is entitled to get pendente lite and post decree interest @6% per annum, which is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

12. The applicant bank, therefore, is entitled to get a final order on the following lines: In the result, the applicant bank is given a final order allowing it to recover:

(i) the sum of Rs.15,63,677/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs sixty three thousand six hundred and seventy seven only)

due under the kissan gold card account from the defendant and by sale of the schedule properties;

(ii) pendente lite and post-decree interest @6% per annum on the sum of Rs.15,63,677/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs sixty three thousand six hundred and seventy seven only) from 02.05.2016 till realization from the defendant and by sale of the schedule properties; and

(iii) costs and expenses borne by it for realization of the loan from the defendant.

13. The schedule to the OA shall be appended to this final order.

14. The applicant bank shall file memo of costs within ten days from the date of this final order.

15. Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of the final order.

16. Communicate copy of this order to both parties as provided in R.16 r/w R.2(c) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 29th day of July, 2026)

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

A P P E N D I X Witness for Applicant: AW1: Sri.P.M.Bridget, Chief Manager of the applicant bank. Witness for Defendant(s): Nil

Applicant’s Exhibits

Ext.No Date Particulars of documents

A1 03.08.2010 Letter of arrangement issued by the bank. A2 03.08.2010 Hypothecation agreement executed by the defendant. A3 31.05.1983 Sale deed No.2104/1983 of Kanjirappally SRO. A4 03.08.2010 Memorandum of deposit of title deeds executed by the defendant. A5 08.07.2011 Letter of arrangement issued by the applicant bank sanctioning the enhanced loan of Rs.15 lakhs to the defendant. A6 08.07.2011 Agreement for hypothecation executed by the defendant. A7 30.04.1997 Sale deed No.1011/1997 of Erumeli SRO. A8 09.07.2011 Memorandum of deposit of title deeds executed by the defendant. A9 09.07.2011 Memorandum of extension of mortgage executed by the defendant. A10 17.03.2014 Revival letter executed by the defendant. A11 … Certified copy of the statement of account relating to the kissan gold card loan. A12 … Statement showing the rate of interest applied in Ext.A11 account. A13 … Statement showing the interest accrued under Ext.A11 account.

Defendant’s Exhibits – Nil

PRESIDING OFFICER

PRESIDING OFFICER

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 29th July, 2026

TA No.649/2016 (OA NO.384/2016)

Between

State Bank of India, Ranni Branch, Manimalethu Building, Angadi P.O., Ranni, Pathanamthitta District. …Applicant

And

T.M.Mathew, Tharappel House, Karikkattoor P.O., Kottayam District. …Defendant

F I N A L O R D E R