IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5901 OF 2011 (SFC) BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION NO.1/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST GENERAL MANAGER ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. YOGESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. MOHAMMED ZAHOOR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS SON OF ASADULLA KALATOOR VILLAGE, KAUP, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN- 574 106.
2. MRS. MAIMUNA ZAHOOR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WIFE OF MOHAMMED ZAHOOR KALATOOR VILLAGE, KAUP UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 24.01.2017 NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 32(9) OF THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2011 PASSED IN MISC.33 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE, UDUPI, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 31(1)(aa) AND SECTION 32 OF STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ACT FOR DIRECTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant filed an application under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.53,00,621/- as calculated in Schedule-A along with interest at 20% along with costs.
2. Both the respondents remained absent.
3. The appellant lead in evidence in support of their case. By the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the application. Hence, this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the Trial Court is erroneous and requires to be interfered with. Even though substantial material has been produced, the Trial Court failed to consider the same. The finding of the Trial Court that the deed of guarantee requires compulsory registration is inappropriate. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed.
5. The respondents are served and unrepresented.
6. On hearing learned counsel, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The material on record would indicate that Exhibit P.2 was a deed of guarantee executed by the borrower. It was on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. The same was disbelieved by the Trial Court on the ground that certain dates mentioned therein were written by pen and there were various blanks which were subsequently typed through a typewriter. Therefore, it was hard to accept Exhibit P.2 as a genuine document. Furthermore, there were no eye witnesses at all in support of the said deed of guarantee. Even so far as the rate of interest is concerned, there was no satisfactory and reliable evidence lead in with regard to the same. Therefore, it was only a claim set up by the appellant seeking for 20% interest on the said amount. For all these reasons, the Trial Court was of the view that the appellant having failed to justify its claim, rejected the application. We do not find any error committed by the Trial Court that calls for any interference.
7. There is substantial doubt insofar as Exhibit P.2, the deed of guarantee is concerned. The said document itself has been tampered or otherwise. The blanks have been subsequently typed. There are no witnesses to the said document. The amount borrowed is a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. What is claimed by the appellant is a sum of Rs.53,00,621/-. Apparently, the said property has also been sold. To a pointed question being asked to the appellant’s counsel, as to when and how the property was sold and what was the amount obtained on such sale, no answer is forthcoming. It is only narrated that after adjusting the sale amount, Rs.53,00,621/- is still due. The amount that is being claimed by the Corporation is a gigantic amount as compared to what was borrowed in a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.
Hence, for all these reasons, we do not find any error committed by the Trial Court that warrants any interference. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE nv