LAWS(RAJ)-1988-11-76

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. KISHAN KAKKAD

Decided On November 02, 1988
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Appellant
V/S
Kishan Kakkad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal filed by the Punjab National Bank, Jodhpur Branch, Jodhpur, (the appellant) are as under :

(2.) The appellant had filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Jodhpur, with the allegation that Mr. Girdharilal Kakkad (the deceased), who was the father of respondents No. 1 to 7 and the husband of respondent No. 8 had borrowed from the appellant, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for installation of Kirloskar Pump set at his well in the fields and had agreed to repay the amount with interest, as specified in the agreement executed between the parties. It has also been pleaded that the deceased mortgaged his agricultural land and executed promissory note on the same date, when he executed the agreement evidencing the loan and that the suit amount was due to the appellant from the deceased, after adjusting the sum already paid in his debt account at the time of the institution of the suit. It was alleged that the deceased having died, the respondents No. 1 to 8, who are his L.Rs. were, liable to pay the amount to the appellant. In these circumstances, it was prayed that the money decree for the suit amount, with pendente-lite and future interest at the agreed rate, be passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondents, with costs and in case the amount is not paid, the mortgage property, i.e. the agricultural land and the Machine and Pump sets, which were also hypothicated with the appellant Bank, be also sold for realisation of the amount and if the sale proceeds are not found sufficient, the decree be executed for recovering the balance amount. The suit was contested on the ground, inter alia, that Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the matter could be decided only by the Revenue Court.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the issues in regard to the authority of the person who had instituted the suit; in regard to the amount of loan taken by the deceased; in regard to the validity of mortgage of agricultural land; and in regard to the hypothication of the Pumping set; in regard to the amount due from deceased and in regard to the interest payable on the said amount, besides framing issues regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the suit.