Original Suit Tractor Loan
Original Suit Tractor Loan
// Versus //
Defendants :: 1) Jambaladinni Narasappa S/o
Mareppa, Aged about: Major, Occ:
Agriculture, R/o Kadadinni Village, Tq;
Manvi Dist:Raichur.
1. That, the name and address of the plaintiff and that of the
defendants are as shown in the cause title above for all-purpose. The
name and address of the counsel for the plaintiff is M.Virupaxigouda
Advocate Station Road, Raichur.
3. That the defendant No.1 had applied for a loan of Rs.3,80,000/- for
the purposes of purchasing the Tractor. Where as the plaintiff Bank
sanctioned the Rs.3,80,000/- with the conditions that the same shall
be repaid with interest at 13% p.a. compoundable with half yearly rest
or such other rate as may be prescribed from time to time and the
same has to be repaid in 18 half year installments of Rs.21,000/-
each with accrued interest thereon and lost instalment of Rs.23,000/-
with accrued interest thereon commencing from 31-07-2008. In case
of delay in repaying the loan amount as agreed over due interest at
2% has to be paid. The Defendant No.1 has to offer the Tractor to be
purchased as security by way of Hypothecation. Further he have to
offer his lands as security and have to offer the surety and accordingly
the defendant No. 2 offered himself as Co-Obligant /Surety to the
defendant No1. The application submitted the defendants with
sanction memorandum are herein produced.
6. That, the Plaintiff Bank as per the instruction of the defendant No.1
released the amount in the account and the same was paid to M/s.
V.K. Commercial Corporation Sindhanoor in order to enable the
defendant No.1 to purchase the Vehicle.
7. That the defendant No.1 accordingly purchased the L&T John Deere
Tractor from the said motors and the same came to be registered with
regional Transport Office Raichur in the name of defendant No.1. The
said vehicle was assigned with No. KA-36/ TA-6625. The
Hypothecation of the plaintiff bank was also duly noted in the
Registration Certificate.
8. That the plaintiff bank after the sanction of the loan and its release
opened the loan account in the name of the defendant No.1 as per
Loan Account No.FML 13/07. The extract of the said loan account,
which has been maintained in the usual and ordinary course of
business, is herein produced.
Contd., page 3
-3-
9. That the defendants after the availment of the loan did not start
repaying the loan amount. Therefore the plaintiff Bank recalled all
the out standings and the officials made several request and demands
to the defendants to clear the dues and inspite of the same they have
not cared to clear the dues. Therefore the plaintiff Bank in pursuance
of the Hypothecation Agreement was compelled to seize the said
Tractor and sold the same in auction by adopting due process. The
said Tractor was sold for Rs.2,41,000/- in auction, the sale amount
was credited to loan account. Later Plaintiff asked for the balance loan
amount they did not care therefore plaintiff bank also got issued legal
notice through it’s advocate but they turned out with deaf ears. Hence
this suit. The defendants also executed letter of revivals on 07-10-
2009 and 01-10-2012 by confirming suit loan amount and same are
produced here in for kind perusal of Hon’ble court.
10. That the defendant No.1 is the Principal Borrower and the defendant
No.2 is the Co-Obligant/Surety and therefore they are all liable to
clear the dues jointly and severally.
11. That as per the Ledger Extract dtd: 15-04-2014, the defendants are
found due a sum of Rs.4,87,251/- after making necessary
adjustments regarding payments received and adjustments made.
Further they are liable to pay future interest at 15% p.a., from
26-04-2014 to till its realization compoundable with half yearly rest.
13. That above are facts which constitutes the cause of action for
this suit which arose for the first time on 20-12-2007 when the
defendant No.1 mortgaged the lands, further on 31-12-2007 when
they availed the loan by executing the documents, when on 15-01-
2014 legal notice issued, inspite of demands the defendants did not
care to clear the dues and the same has arisen within the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.
HENCE IT IS PRAYED
That the suit of the plaintiff bank be decreed against the defendants
as under;
A) A preliminary decree in favour of bank for Rs. 4,87,251/-together
with future interest at 15% per annum compounded half yearly from the
date of suit till its realization of entire due amount with full costs of the
suit within the specified period and if the defendants fails to make
payment of decreetal amount within such, then the plaintiff bank be set at
liberty to go far final decree against the defendants to sell the mortgaged
schedule mentioned properties by way of public auction for realizing due
amount.
C) That in case the sale proceeds are found to be insufficient, then the
plaintiff bank may be permitted to proceed against the defendants No 1 to
2 holding them liable to pay jointly and severally and against other
properties.
D) Any other relief or relief’s which the Hon’ble court may deems fit in the
circumstance of the case may also be granted.
Date:
Amaresh Adoni S/o Narayanappa
Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank Sirwar.
SCHEDULE
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTIES MORTGAGED
Bounded by:-
East: Land of Narasanna
West: Land of Earappa
North: Land of Goudayya
South: Land of Goudayya
VERIFICATION
Plaintiff
Place: Manvi
Date:
Through,
M. Virupakshigouda,
Advocate, Manvi
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AT: MANVI
O.S. No. /2014
V E R I F Y I N G A F F I D A V I T
2. That the contents of the above plaint at Para No.1 to 16 and prayer
are true and correct to the best of knowledge, belief and as per
information received and I believe them to be true and correct.
Hence Verified.
Place: Manvi
Deponent
Date:
(Amaresh Adoni)
Identified by me.
Advocate
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AT: MANVI
O.S. No. /2014
Place: Manvi
Date: -04-2014 Counsel for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AT: MANVI
INDEX
Sl.
Particulars No. of Pages Court Fees
No.
1. Plaint with verifying affidavit in 6 Pages each Rs.32,547/-
duplicate with court fee challen
of SBH.
2. Valuation Slip 1 page
Place: Manvi
Date: M.Virupaxigouda
Counsel for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AT: MANVI
VALUATION SLIP
Place: Manvi
Date:
Counsel for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AT: MANVI
Process Memo
above case.
Place: Manvi
// Versus //
1. That, the name and address of the plaintiff and that of the
defendants are as shown in the cause title above for all-purpose. The
name and address of the counsel for the plaintiff is M.Virupaxigouda
Advocate Station Road, Raichur.
3. That the defendant No.1 had applied for a loan of Rs.3,80,000/- for
the purposes of purchasing the Tractor. Where as the plaintiff Bank
sanctioned the Rs.3,80,000/- with the conditions that the same shall
be repaid with interest at 13% p.a. compoundable with half yearly rest
or such other rate as may be prescribed from time to time and the same
has to be repaid in 18 half year installments of Rs.21,000/- each with
accrued interest thereon and lost instalment of Rs.23,000/-with
accrued interest thereon commencing from 31-07-2008. In case of
delay in repaying the loan amount as agreed over due interest at 2%
has to be paid. The Defendant No.1 has to offer the Tractor to be
purchased as security by way of Hypothecation. Further he have to
offer his lands as security and have to offer the surety and accordingly
the defendant No. 2 offered himself as Co-Obligant /Surety to the
defendant No1. The application submitted the defendants with sanction
memorandum are herein produced.
6.That, the Plaintiff Bank as per the instruction of the defendant No.1
released the amount in the account and the same was paid to M/s. V.K.
Commercial Corporation Sindhanoor in order to enable the defendant
No.1 to purchase the Vehicle.
7.That the defendant No.1 accordingly purchased the L&T John Deere
Tractor from the said motors and the same came to be registered with
regional Transport Office Raichur in the name of defendant No.1. The
said vehicle was assigned with No. KA-36/ TA-6625. The Hypothecation
of the plaintiff bank was also duly noted in the Registration Certificate.
8.That the plaintiff bank after the sanction of the loan and its release
opened the loan account in the name of the defendant No.1 as per Loan
Account No.FML 13/07. The extract of the said loan account, which
has been maintained in the usual and ordinary course of business, is
herein produced.
Contd., page 3
-3-
9.That the defendants after the availment of the loan did not start
repaying the loan amount. Therefore the plaintiff Bank recalled all the
out standings and the officials made several request and demands to
the defendants to clear the dues and inspite of the same they have not
cared to clear the dues. Therefore the plaintiff Bank in pursuance of the
Hypothecation Agreement was compelled to seize the said Tractor and
sold the same in auction by adopting due process. The said Tractor
was sold for Rs.2,41,000/- in auction, the sale amount was credited to
loan account. Later Plaintiff asked for the balance loan amount they did
not care therefore plaintiff bank also got issued legal notice through it’s
advocate but they turned out with deaf ears. Hence this suit. The
defendants also executed letter of revivals on 07-10-2009 and 01-10-
2012 by confirming suit loan amount and same are produced here in
for kind perusal of Hon’ble court.
10.That the defendant No.1 is the Principal Borrower and the defendant
No.2 is the Co-Obligant/Surety and therefore they are all liable to clear
the dues jointly and severally.
11.That as per the Ledger Extract dtd: 15-04-2014, the defendants are
found due a sum of Rs.4,87,251/- after making necessary adjustments
regarding payments received and adjustments made. Further they are
liable to pay future interest at 15% p.a., from 26-04-2014 to
till its realization compoundable with half yearly rest.
13.That above are facts which constitutes the cause of action for this
suit which arose for the first time on 20-12-2007 when the defendant
No.1 mortgaged the lands, further on 31-12-2007 when they availed the
loan by executing the documents, when on 15-01-2014 legal notice
issued, inspite of demands the defendants did not care to clear the dues
and the same has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.
HENCE IT IS PRAYED
That the suit of the plaintiff bank be decreed against the defendants
as under;
A) A preliminary decree in favour of bank for Rs. 4,87,251/-together
with future interest at 15% per annum compounded half yearly from the
date of suit till its realization of entire due amount with full costs of the
suit within the specified period and if the defendants fails to make
payment of decreetal amount within such, then the plaintiff bank be set at
liberty to go far final decree against the defendants to sell the mortgaged
schedule mentioned properties by way of public auction for realizing due
amount.
C) That in case the sale proceeds are found to be insufficient, then the
plaintiff bank may be permitted to proceed against the defendants No 1 to
2 holding them liable to pay jointly and severally and against other
properties.
D) Any other relief or relief’s which the Hon’ble court may deems fit in the
circumstance of the case may also be granted.
Date: 29-07-2015
Amaresh Adoni S/o Narayanappa
Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank Sirwar.
SCHEDULE
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTIES MORTGAGED
Bounded by:-
East: Land of Narasanna
West: Land of Earappa
North: Land of Goudayya
South: Land of Goudayya
VERIFICATION
Plaintiff
Place: Manvi
Date: 29-07-2015
Through,
M. Virupakshigouda,
Advocate, Manvi