SYNDICATE BANK Vs. G R ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed as against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, in OA-1279/99. The DRT, Bangalore, has passed the order allowing the application in part declaring defendants 1 to 3 liable to pay the decree amount jointly and severally to the appellant applicant-Bank with costs and interests stipulated in the order and dismissing the application as against the defendant. Aggrieved against the order of the DRT on the dismissal of the application as against the 4th defendant, the appellant-Bank has come forward with this appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank submitted that even the 4th defendant has created security and in respect of this loan the 4th defendant also must be held liable along with the other defendants for payment of the decree amount and the order passed by the DRT dismissing the application as against the 4th defendant is not sustainable. He relies upon the letter written by the 4th defendant to the appellant-Bank dated 18.4.1991 wherein the 4th defendant has agreed to create a mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of the properties described in the schedule and has also handed over the documents of title to the Bank and also the agreement entered into between the 4th defendant and others confirming the oral partition. Relying upon these documents he submits that since the 4th defendant has created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds, the 4th defendant is also liable for the suit claim.

(3.) EVEN in the affidavit of D-4, she has stated that the security is extended only at such time M/s. G.R. Enterprises deposits 10% of the margin money and also pays the commission charges and on compliance of this her security shall be redeemed. It is evident from the records that the margin money was paid by the 2nd defendant. So, on payment of such margin money the 4th defendant's security shall be redeemed. So, under the circumstances, the 4th defendant cannot be held liable as her liability was only to the extent of cash margin of 10% which was also paid by the 2nd defendant which automatically absolved the liability of the 4th defendant.