CANARA BANK vs MRS. LAKKAMMA & ORS (HASSAN) on 31 July 2026

FINAL ORDER

1. The present Transfer Application in short (TA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 14,05,415/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifteen Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

2. It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant nos. 1(a to d) are the legal heirs of the deceased borrower Mrs. Lakkamma availed a farm Machinery loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) for the purpose of purchase of tractor, trailer and other implements.

3. The deceased borrower executed necessary loan document in favour of the applicant bank as security for the due repayment of the loan, interest, cost and charges. The late borrower Mrs. Lakkamma had also executed Simple Mortgage Deed dated 07.02.2007.

3 TA-962/2017

4. It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

5. In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this TA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

6. After filling of the TA, summons sent to defendants by registered post. The summons to defendant no.1 returned unserved with an endorsement “dead” and the applicant bank has filed an IA no. 808/2019, to bring the LRs of deceased defendant no.1. When the case came up for hearing on 20.06.2019, in spite of granting sufficient time for applicant to take steps on the LRs of defendant no.1, the applicant has not taken steps. Despite, services completed, the defendants placed ex parte on 25.03.2026.

7. The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the TA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-1 and got the same marked in evidence.

8. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

9. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA

4 TA-962/2017

claim as against the defendants? ii) What order are to be passed?

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

10. The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facility as stated in the TA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

11. Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

12. Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility is availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal of the view that OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

5 TA-962/2017

13. In the result, TA.No.962/2017, stands allowed, i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 14,05,415/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifteen Only) with further interest @6.00%p.a.(simple) from the date of filing TA till the realization, from the defendant nos. 2 to 4, the defendants no. 1(a to d) to the extent of their inheritance of any estate form the deceased borrower, Mrs. Lakkamma, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the TA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate. ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to clean the liability defendant nos. 1 (a to d) are liable to the extent of estate they inherited from deceased Mrs. Lakkamma for the balance amount.

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

6 TA-962/2017

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. [Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31th Day of July, 2026].

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICE

ANNEXURES WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK: AW-1: Harish M, S/o. Munivenkatappa, Manager, of Applicant Bank. Exhibits on the part of the Applicant: Exhibit Particulars A1 Original loan application form dated 09.02.2007 A2 Original sanction memorandum dated 09.02.2007 A3 Original memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans dated 09.02.2007 A4 & A5 Original RC book reflecting hypothecation in the name of application bank A6 The original simple mortgage deed dated 07.02.2007 A7 & A8 Original letter of revival dated 08.01.2013 A9 The original statement of accounts along with bankers’ book of evidence A10 The original legal notice dated 25.08.2010 Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER