9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Amount due to the bank from the appellants. 2. Whether the suit was within the limitation period. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Amount Due to the Bank from the Appellants: The bank claimed that the appellants owed Rs. 40,000/-, with a mortgage deed executed on March 1, 1947, for Rs. 15,956/7/-, and further advances up to Rs. 16,000/-. The appellants contested the bank's claim, particularly disputing the alleged advance of Rs. 10,000/- on March 19, 1947, and the repayment of Rs. 100/- on November 24, 1949. The trial court overlooked the specific issue of the total amount due but concluded that Rs. 32,000/- was due, excluding interest. The High Court upheld the bank's claim based on the account entries, despite the appellants' challenge to the correctness of these entries. The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, entries in books of account alone are insufficient to charge any person with liability. The bank failed to provide independent evidence to corroborate the Rs. 10,000/- advance on March 19, 1947. The court noted that the appellants had explicitly denied any borrowing after March 1, 1947, and the bank's reliance solely on account entries was inadequate. Consequently, the court concluded that the Rs. 10,000/- advance was not proven and should not be included in the amount due. 2. Whether the Suit was Within the Limitation Period: The court addressed the limitation period for both the mortgage liability and personal liability. For the mortgage liability, the suit was within the 12-year limitation period as per Article 138 of the Limitation Act of 1908. However, for personal liability, the suit was beyond the 6-year limitation period stipulated under Article 116. The court also dismissed the bank's reliance on a Rs. 100/- payment entry to extend the limitation period, as there was no written acknowledgment by the appellants as required under Sections 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act. The court further examined Article 85 of the Limitation Act concerning mutual accounts, noting that the last payment was made in November 1949, and the suit filed in April 1953 was beyond the 3-year limitation period from the end of 1949. Therefore, the bank could not claim a personal decree against the appellants. Conclusion: The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, declaring that the amount due to the bank on April 9, 1953, was Rs. 15,956/7/- plus compound interest at Rs. 6/- per cent per annum with monthly rests, minus Rs. 1,498/10/3 and Rs. 100/- paid on May 14, 1948, and November 24, 1949, respectively. The trial court was directed to modify the preliminary decree accordingly, granting the appellants three months to pay the amount, failing which the bank could seek a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged properties. No personal decree was granted, and the bank was awarded proportionate costs in the lower courts, with the appellants bearing their own costs throughout.
|
