CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was suit for recovery of Rs.60609/- filed by the Central Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Company Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970 through its General Attorney/Manager Sh. S.S. Sharma posted with Central Bank of India Laswa Branch against Narain Singh and Hari Chand-defendants, on the allegtions, that Narain Singh approached plaintiff bank for a crop loan for purchase of seeds and fertilizers etc. He made application dated 15.9.1987 with a vew to obtaining loan for the purchase of seeds and fertilizers etc. Loan was duly sanctioned to him by the bank. After the sanctioning of the cash credit hypothecation limit, Narain Singh obtained a cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs. 50,000/- on interest 16.5% per annum with half yerly rests from the plaintiff bank vide an agreement dated 27.10.1987 against hypothecation of crops standing in his fields. He was to repay the said cash credit hypothecation limit after harvesting of the crops or on demand by the plaintiff bank. On 27.10.1987 Narain Singh executed loan-cum- hypothecation agreement (crops) for Rs.50,000 - in favour of the bank. In consideration of the bank sanctioning cash credit hypothecation limit in favour of Narain Singh, he mortgaged agricultural land measuring 48 kanals, belonging to him vide registered mortgage deed dated 15.9.1987. It was stipulated in the mortgage deed that interest @ 16.5% per annum with half yearly rests shall run on the amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Hari Chand- defendnat No. 2 stood guarantor for the aforesaid cash credit hypothecation deed executed on 27.10.1987. As on 14.1.1990, according to the bank record and the statement of account prepared by the bank in its regular course of banking business, a sum of Rs. 60,609/- became due including interest calculated up to 14.1.1990. Plaintiff bank prayed that decree for the sum of Rs. 60,609/- be passed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant and the decretal amount be got recovered by the sale of the mortgaged property. It was further prayed that the defendants be made liable jointly and severally to pay the decretal amount. It was further prayed that the defendants be directed to pay the decretal amount within 6 months from the date of preliminary decree alongwith interest and costs and in case defendants failed to pay decree under Order 34, Rule 5, CPC be passed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants directing the realisation of the decretal amount, interest and costs alongwith subsequent costs, interest charges or expenses which might be adjudged due by the sale of mortgaged property. It was also prayed that the crops hypothecated by the defendants be also ordered to be sold and the sale proceeds thereof be directed to be applied towards the decretal amount, costs and interest. It was, also prayed that if any part of the decretal amount remained unrecovered by the sale of mortgaged property and by the sale of hypothecated crops, defendants be made personally liable to pay from their personal property.

(2.) Suit of the plaintiff bank was decreed ex-parte by Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra vide order dated 18.7.1995.

(3.) Operative part of the decree passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra reads as follows: "As a result, I conclude to hold the plaintiff has succeeded in proving its case, therefor suit of the plaintiff bank for recovery of Rs. 60,609/- is decreed with costs. Plaintiff bank is held entitled to interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till the realisation of the decretal amount, but on the principal amount of Rs. 50,000/-. This decree was passed on the following claim laid by the plaintiff bank in the plaint.