Sri M v. Durga Prasad Gounsel for the

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS -'/ l.A. NO: 1 OF 200 CMP. NO: OF Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Decree dated 03-07-2000 in O.S.No. 1/1990 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli, including the execution pending the above Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. V. Durga Prasad Gounsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri Podila Hari Prasad The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT a THE HONOURABLE T. JUSTICE K.SUJANA JUDGMENT: APPEAL SUIT No. 2915 0F 2000 The present appeal is hled against the judgment and decree d,ated 03.07.2000 in O.S. No. 1 of 1990 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally (for short, 'the trial Court'), whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,80,770/- was allowed by the trial Court.

2. The appellalt herein is defendant No.4 and respondent No. I herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are defendant Nos. 1 to 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the main suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated defendant No.4 to file the present appeal, are as follows: It is the case of the plaintiff that .defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are partners of defendant No. l-Company, borrowed Rs. 1,39,338.80 with l2yo interest per annum from the plaintiff-Bank by executing the necessary documents including revival letters dated 05.04.1984, agreement of hypothecation, guaraitee hypothecating the stocks, assets etc., of defendant No. 1-Company and defendant No.3 created equitable mortgage of his lands situated at Gollapoodi village in Madhira Taluka in favour of the plaintiff-Bank on 31.08.1991 by depositing title deeds under a memorandum. It is stated that the I I SI(S,J AS_2915_2000 legal notice dated 21.01.1985 was issued to the defendants by the plaintiff-Bank demanding the due payment of Rs.2,8O,770. 10 ps., however, the defendants have not responded to the same. Hence, the plaintiff hled the suit for recovery of Rs.2,8O,77O.lO from the defendants. Pendente lite, defendant No.3 expired and his son brought on record as defendant No.4 as per the order dated

08.06.2000 passed in I.A. No.185 of 1996. Defendant No.4 frled I.A. No.612 of 1999 to dismiss the suit as adjusted and the same was partly allowed recording part satisfaction of Rs. l,5O,O0O/- only.

4. Before the trial Court, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte and defendant No.4, who is legal representative of the deceased defendant No.3, filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that he never created an equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank with regard to his lands. Ib is a-lso contended that he never executed aly revival letters in favour of the Bank as he is not acquainted with the documents.

5. Based on the above pleadings,the trial Court has framed the following issues on 19.03.1991:

1. Whether the equitable mortgage in respect of the suit schedule is true ualid and binding upon tle defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiff i"s entitled to preliminary decree? 3. To ttluil relieJ?

6. The plaintiff, in support of his case, examined p.Ws. 1 to 4 and I sl(sJ AS_2915_2000 got marked Exs.A.l to A. 16 and Exs.B.l to B.3. On behalf of the defendalts, none was examined and no document was marked.

7. The trial Court on appreciating the evidence on record, has allowed the suit entitling the plaintiff to ciaim the contractual rate of interest on the balance of the suit arnount. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by defendant No.4.

8. Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Podila Hari Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. Perused the material avaiiable on record.

9. [,earned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has paid Rs.1,50,OO0/- towards full settlement, wherein, respondent No.l/Bank gave letter in Ex.A.2 stating that as per the compromise proposal approved by the competent authority of the Bank, Rs.30,0O0/- was paid on 15.O2.1999 and balance of Rs. 1,20,0OO/- was paid on 15.03.1999 and that total of Rs.1,50,000/- was received tov/ards the compromise. He further submitted that when Rs. 1 ,50,000/ - was received towards the compromise, respondent No.1-Bank cannot ciaim that the authority who issued Ex.A.2 is not competent. He also submitted that the appellant and otfrers, who are the outsiders, are not responsible with the internal management of the Bank. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the appeal. -t F 4 SI(s,J AS-2915_2000

10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that marking of the documents in interlocutory application is not proper ald defendant No.4 has not adduced any evidence in the suit. He further sought to sustain the impugned judgment of the trial Court stating that the trial Court has rightly allowed the suit after considering the evidence on record and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.

11. In view of the rivai submissions made by both the parlies, this Court has perused the material evidence available on record. The points to be considered are that: (1) Whether the appeilant here obtained loan by way of equitable mortgage? (2) Whether the compromise letter issued by the Bank is valid and it can be considered to be towards hnal settlement of the suit amount?

12. Point No.l: To Prove that the Bank gave loal to defendant Nos.1 to 3, they relied on Exs.A.1 to A.7 ald the same documents were admitted by the defendants, as such, there is no dispute with regard to the loan granted by the Bank and also there is no dispute with regard to the amount advanced by the Bank. Hence, it can be concluded that the Bank granted loan amount. l I 5 SKS,J AS 291s 2000

13. Point No.2: The appellant herein filed I.A. No.6l2 of 1999 before the trial Court to dismiss the suit as they already compromised the matter with the Bank by paying Rs. 1,50,OO0/- towards full satisfaction of the suit amount. The suit amount is Rs.2,8O,770.1O ps., and the Bank accepted Rs.1,50,000/- towards full satisfaction. In I.A. No.612 ot 1999, defendant No.4 hled Ex.A. 1, draft letter to be addressed to the borrower after approval of compromise proposal by competent authority dated 15.02.1999 and Ex.A.2, letter of state bank of Hyderabad, Paloncha Branch, dated O1.03.1999 i.e., receipt for Rs. 1,50,0OO/-. Further, respondent No.1-Bank stated that the said compromise is not valid as the concerned Branch Manager is not authorised to accept the amount towards final settlement and he has not taken any permission from the Zonal ofiice and as such, disciplinary departmental proceedings are initiated against him. In support of the same, he frled Ex.B. 1, letter of the .State Bank of Hyderabad, Palwancha Branch, uide No.F/30/65 dated 12.05.1999, Ex.B.2, disciplinary proceedings issued by the disciplinary authority, general manager, operations, dated 09.06. 1999, Ex.B.3, confidential letter issued by N.N.Reddy dated 12.O5.1999. However, no evidence is adduced by respondent No.l-Bank to prove that the concerned Branch Manager is not authorised oflicer to accept the amount towards full satisfaction of the loan amount. It is noteworthy that initiating proceedings against the concerned ofhcer is not a ground 6 SKS,J AS 2915 2000 \!E \* to set aside the document under Ex.A.2 and as such, the amount paid by the defendants to respondent No. l-Bank towards full satisfaction of the loan amount under Ex.A.2 has to be considered when there is no contra evidence and moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that the said amount is not received by respondent No.1-Bank. 14 . Pertinently, when respondent No. l-Bank is admitting the receiving of Rs. 1,5O,O0OI-, they are estopped to say that the said Branch Manager is not competent to compound the suit amount. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned judgment dated

03.07.2000 in view of the payment of Rs. 1,5O,0O0/- towards full satisfaction of the suit amount.

15. In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 03.07.20OO passed in O.S. No. 1 of 1990 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S\iTION OFFICER To E----- The Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli. (with records, if any) I

2. One CC to Sri M. V. Durga prasad, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri podila Hari prasad, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH/PSL $- I HIGH COURT DATED: 2510712025 ( ! i ( ( i ,\ HE 5A \'(_ o C) 0 2 rEB 20?6 * SPA'T t ."ri JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.2915 of 2000 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS I I I I G *t+ &, I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY HE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT NO: 2915 OF 2000 Between: Dasari Venkata Prasad Rao S/o Harinarayana, aged about 55 years, Occupation: Buslness, Near Post Office, R/o Old Paloncha Village & Mandal, Khammam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT No. 4 AND 1 The State Bank of Hyderabad, represented by its Branch Manager, Paloncha Branch, Khammam District

2. M/s. Kalyani lndustries, Paloncha, represented by its first partner Sri Bavirisetti Venkata Suresh, C/o Sandhya Cloth Stores, Paloncha, Khammam District.

3. Bavirisefty Venkata Suresh S/o Seetharama Mohan Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, C/o Sandhya Cloth Stores, Paloncha, Khammam District

4. Dasari Harinarayana S/o Venkata Charyulu, Aged about 68 years. Occ business, R/o Gollapudi (V), Madhira Taluk, Khammam District (Daed) RR 2 and 3 disd for defauld vide court order dtd 8111113. (Respondents 2 & 3 are reinstated as per Court Order Dt 25110121 vide lA No 1 ol 2017 in AS. 2915/2000) ...RESPONOENTS/DEFENDANTS This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. V. Durga Prasad, for the appellant. Sri Podila Hari Prasad, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No. 2 to 4. // This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2000 passed in O.S.No. 1 of 1990 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal- Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR I \..._-__.-..- s+floN OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli. 2. Two CD Copies VH/PSLw HIGH COURT DATED: 2510712025 DECREE AS.No.2915 of 2000 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ld>"'k