P SWARNALATHA Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD
LAWS(DR)-2003-3-9
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 13,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.Subbulakshmy, - (1.)THE appellant filed IA-I praying the Tribunal to dismiss the OA 87/2001 as hit by Rule 10 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. THE Tribunal dismissed that petition. Aggrieved against that order, the appellant has come forward with this appeal.
(2.)The Counsel for appellant submits that different loans have been availed by the defendants and all the loans have been clubbed together by the respondent Bank and the respondent Bank has filed the OA and clubbing all the reliefs in a single suit is not maintainable and so the OA has to be dismissed.
Rule 10 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 states that:

"An applicant shall not seek relief or reliefs based on more than a single cause of action in one single application unless the reliefs prayed for are consequential to one another."

The defendants 1 to 3 availed the loans from the respondent Bank. D3 is the wife, D2 is the husband and D1 is the son. The family members consisting of husband, wife and son availed the loan facilities from the respondent Bank. For all the loans availed by the defendants, the property of the 2nd defendant is offered as security.

The Counsel for the appellant submits that for one loan availed by the defendants for Rs. 19,000/-, no mortgage has been created. The representative of the Bank drew my attention to the letter given by the 2nd defendant dated 6.12.1997 to the Bank wherein the 2nd defendant has specifically stated with regard to this loan of Rs. 19,000/- which is disputed by the appellant's Counsel and for that loan also, the security offered by D2 has been extended. Even in the OA filed, the Bank has mentioned with regard to this letter and the Bank has specifically stated that for all the loans availed by the defendants, the property offered by D2 is the security. In fact, the 2nd defendant has extended this property alone as security for all the loans availed by all the defendants. The defendants 1, 2 and 3 are none other than same family members. For the loans availed by all the three defendants, the husband 2nd defendant has given this property as security. Since the same property is offered as security for all the loans availed by the defendants, a single cause of action and a single suit for all the loans availed is maintainable. As the property mortgaged alone has to be brought to sale, if a decree is passed for all the loan transactions, the sale can be conducted only in one single suit and it cannot be split up. Section 67-A of the Transfer of Property Act compels the mortgagee to sue on all the mortgages in respect of which the mortgage money has become due, by bringing a single cause of action. So, under such circumstances, the single suit filed by the Bank against all the defendants for which the same property is offered as security is maintainable. A single Original Application under Section 19 of RDDB & FI Act to recover the amounts due under two or more accounts, giving rise to more than a single cause of action, is not barred by Rule 10 if the amounts due are covered by a single mortgage. Since the defendants have availed the loan and offered the same property as security, a single OA filed for all the loan transactions is maintainable and it is not barred by Rule 10. The Presiding Officer, DRT has rightly dismissed the petition.

(3.)APPEAL dismissed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.