At, Debts Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: SANJEEV MAGO
By, (PRESIDING OFFICER)
For Petitioner: Aalok Jagga, Advocate. And For Respondents: D.K. Gupta, Advocate.
1. I have heard the arguments of both the Ld. Counsels in this SA.
2. Counsel for applicant has argued that in this case applicants are neither guarantors nor the borrowers and applicants had availed the loan facilities from Punjab National Bank for themselves and they cleared that loan but bank has got signed of the applicants on letters which are annexed at page No. 68, 149 & 175 with reply of bank and thereafter forged these letters and added the name of respondent No. 2. This letter at page No. 68 dated 19.05.2014 which is forged one and applicants had moved a complaint before Reserve Bank of India and Reserve Bank of India also observed that contents of this letter should be examined from the forensic laboratory, but bank never acted upon the observations of Reserved Bank of India.
3. Counsel for applicant further argued that in this case bank had got entries of this property in revenue record on 05.03.2014. If letter at page No. 68 dated 19.05.2014 is presumed to be genuine letter then how bank could get this entry in revenue record in 05.03.2014 which clearly shows that page No. 68 on which bank has relied, is forged one and in support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for applicants have place on record one judgment passed by Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi titled as "Pritpal Kaur vs. Central Bank of India" in which a principal has been propounded that if applicant is neither borrower nor guarantor and merely deposits title deeds, makes him not liable for the payment of any amount and prayed to restrain the respondent bank from auctioning the property of applicants. Besides this arguments counsel for applicants have not argued on any other issue.
4. Counsel for respondent bank has argued that letter annexed by bank alongwith its reply at page No. 149 which are duly signed by all the applicants and they were well aware of the fact that bank had extended loan facilities to the borrowers and all the applicants deposited their title deeds as additional security for further liability of M/s. Guru Rice Mills/respondent No. 2. Thereafter this facility was again extended which is at page No. 175 which was duly signed by all the applicants and applicants again signed these documents by depositing the title deeds as an additional security for the further liability of M/s. Guru Rice Mills.
5. Counsel for respondent bank has clarified that these facilities were given to the borrowers from December 2013 and it is a practice of bank that they got these entries in revenue record after releasing the amount in December 2013.
6. Counsel for respondent bank further argued that documents at page No. 149 & 175 annexed by bank alongwith its reply clearly prove that all the applicants deposited their title deeds as a additional security for the further liability of M/s. Guru Rice Mills and they have admitted their signatures on documents. Therefore, contention of the applicant that these documents are forged cannot be relied upon and prayed to dismiss this SA.
7. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the file & documentary evidence annexed by them.
8. In this SA counsel for applicant has raised only one issue that in this case applicant is neither borrower nor the guarantors therefore they are not liable for any dues of any other borrowers even if their title deeds were deposited.
9. Further, Counsel for applicant has raised another issue that the letter at page No. 149 & 175 annexed by respondent bank alongwith its reply are forged.
10. As far as first issue is concerned, it has to be been seen whether deposit of title deeds makes applicant liable towards the liability of M/s. Guru Rice Mills and regarding this issue counsel for applicant place on record judgment of Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi.
11. I have perused this judgment and in para 36 of this judgment it has been mentioned that defendants never stood as guarantor for the credit facility grated to the other defendants and the court accordingly found that she was under no liability whatsoever and if she deposited her title deeds, no liability of the payment of the amount could be fastened on to her.
12. The Court has observed that deposit of title deed could create mortgage only if defendant No. 4 had a liability to pay as a principal debtor or as a guarantor. The Court accordingly held that suit against defendant No. 4 was not maintainable.
13. On the perusal of documents at page No. 149 & 175 the language is:
"title deed already deposited by the applicants shall continue to be held as a additional security for the further liability of M/s. Guru Rice Mills".
14. Therefore, from the language of both these letters at page No. 149 & 175 applicants have agreed to deposit their title deeds as a additional security for further liability of M/s. Guru Rice Mills/respondent No. 2. These letters are duly signed by applicant and they have admitted their signatures. Therefore, from the reading of both these documents it is clear that these title deeds have been deposited as a additional security for further liability of M/s. Guru Rice Mills. These documents amount to be guaranty documents and it cannot be said that applicants have deposited these documents without taking any liability towards any amount. Therefore, the facts of the case in hands are entirely different from the fact given in the judgment sited by Counsel for applicant as mentioned above and do not give any support to the applicant in this case.
15. Bare perusal of documents at page No. 149 & 175 annexed by bank alongwith its reply, makes it clear that applicants had agreed to deposit their title deeds as a additional security for further liability of M/s. Guru Rice Mills and these documents were duly signed by them. Counsel for applicant has admitted that when the applicant signed these documents they were blank and later on they were filled by the bank and forged this documents. In the absence of any proof, it cannot be said that these documents have been forged by the bank officer and if applicant has such impression then he is free to take criminal action against concerned bank officer in the competent court of law.
16. It is well settled principal of law that if any document is signed by any person, its a presumption that the document has been executed by him with full knowledge and consent. Therefore, documents at page No. 149 & 175 cannot be said to be forged at this stage without any evidence and since these documents were duly signed by the applicant and from the language of these documents it is very much clear that applicant deposited their title deeds as an additional security for further liability of M/s. Guru Rice Mills. Therefore, respondent bank has full legal right to auction the said property for the recovery of loan amount given to M/s. Guru Rice Mills as these properties were additional security for the liability of M/s. Guru Rice Mills.
17. As far as the entry in revenue record on 05.03.2014 is concerned, it is a practice of bank that after releasing the amount in December 2013 to the borrower they got these entries in revenue record on 05.03.2014 do not create any doubt on the genuinenes
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
s of the documents at page No. 149 & 175. 18. Therefore, as per mentioned above I am of the view that applicants deposited their title deeds as an additional security for the further liability of M/s. Guru Rice Mills/respondent No. 2 and therefore now they are liable for the payment of the due of M/s. Guru Rice Mills. The respondent bank is entitled to recover this amount by selling these properties of the applicant as per law. 19. Therefore, I find no merits in this SA and accordingly this SA is dismissed and stay granted by this Tribunal on 23.12.2019 is vacated and respondent bank is free to auction these properties to recover its dues as per law. 20. The copy of this order be given to the parties as per rules and thereafter file be consigned to record room.