Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Jyothiba Siddappa Jambagi Since Deceased through His Legal Heirs Diddappa Igeppa Jambagi

DRT23 Oct 2025OA/1155/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for a recovery certificate of ₹28,04,645 against agricultural loan defaulters. The decree allowed recovery from the legal heirs of the deceased debtor up to the value of inherited assets and personally from the surviving defendant for the shortfall.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate for Rs. 28,04,645 with 6.00% p.a. simple interest; Applicants allowed to proceed against schedule property and defendant's assets.

Canara Bank versus Sri Jyothiba Siddappa Jambagi Since… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 23^rd Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1155/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank, Ankali Branch, Mayur Chitra Mandir, Ankali, Chikkodi Taluk, Belgaum Dist., Karnataka -591213, Rep. by its Branch Manager,

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Jyothiba Siddappa Jambagi, Since Deceased Rep. by his legal heirs,

¶9

(a) Sri. Diddappa Igeppa Jambagi

¶10

(b) Smt. Sundarabai Siddappa Jambagu,

¶11

¶12

Sri. Vittal Maruthi Hakki, S/o. Maruthi Hakki, Nilaji, Raibag Taluk, Belgaum Dist., Karnataka -591217.

¶13

...DEFENDANTS

¶14

Ld. Counsels on record / appeared :-

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : VS Associates Defendants : Exparte

OA 1155/2022

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short “OA” has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 28,04,645/(Rupees twenty-four lakh four thousand six hundred forty-five only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶20

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants had availed three agricultural loan facilities: (i) Rs. 4,73,000/(Rupees four lakh seventy-three thousand only) on 08.12.2004; (ii) Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty-five thousand only) on 21.06.2006; and (iii) Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only), all for agricultural purposes. Since Defendant No.1 has passed away, Defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) have become the legal heirs of the deceased Defendant No.1.

¶21

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above loan, the Defendants executed necessary loan documents in favour of the Applicant bank to secure the loan and also had created mortgage over the schedule properties.

¶22

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, after agreeing with the Terms and

¶23

OA 1155/2022

¶24

¶25

Conditions of the loan, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶26

In the above circumstances, the Applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶27

Despite issuance of summons, there were no appearance of the Defendants. Hence, they were called absent and set ex parte on 12.03.2024.

¶28

The Applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A13, got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

i) Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the OA

¶32

claim as against the Defendants?

¶33

OA 1155/2022

¶34

¶35

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

The case put forth by the Applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as Defendants remained exparte. The Defendant Nos.1 (a) to (c) are the legal heir of the deceased Defendant No.1, and they inherit the estate left by deceased. Hence, the Defendant Nos.1 (a) to (b), being legal heir, is entitled to inherit the debt contracted by the deceased. The evidence tendered by the Applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and are sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the defaults committed by the Defendants in repaying

¶38

the loan amount due. The liability of the Defendants to the loan amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the Applicant is well within the limitation.

¶39

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes

¶40

to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶41

Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed

¶42

OA 1155/2022

¶43

¶44

by the Defendants for agricultural purposes and also the fact that

¶45

OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 6.00% (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest

¶46

for the future period is hereby declined.

¶47

In the result, OA.No.1155/2022, is allowed,

¶48

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶49

of Rs. 28,04,645/- (Rupees twenty-eight lakh four thousand six hundred forty-five only) with pendente lite and future interest of 6.00% p.a. (simple), from 01.04.2021 till the realization, from

¶50

the Defendants jointly and severally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allow the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶51

ii) Defendant No.2 is personally, and his assets are liable

¶52

to be proceeded against for the shortfall if any to recover the balance amount due.

¶53

iii) Defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) are liable only to the

¶54

OA 1155/2022

¶55

¶56

extent of the property inherited from the deceased Defendant

¶57

No.1.

¶58

iv) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶59

for which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the

¶60

date of receipt of the order.

¶61

v) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this

¶62

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶63

vi) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of

¶64

in terms of this final order.

¶65

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶66

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16

¶67

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶68

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23^rd day of October, 2025)

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶73

AW-1: Sri. Kowari Suresh, Manager of Applicant Bank.

¶74

OA 1155/2022

¶75

¶76

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶77

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	08.12.2004	Loan application and sanction letter
A2	21.06.2006	sanction letter
A3	15.09.2007, 24.09.2007	Loan application and Sanction letter
A4	08.12.2004	Memorandum of Agreement
A5	04.08.2005	Hypothecation for Kisan Credit Card
A6	23.08.2007	Letter of renewal
A7	27.09.2007	Agreement and Deed for Kisan OD
A8	06.08.2005, 15.09.2007	RSM
A9	26.07.2007, 13.07.2010, 10.06.2013, 15.05.2018, 19.01.2021, 10.06.2013, 14.05.2016, 23.08.2007, 06.06.2008, 07.06.2011, 10.04.2014, 01.09.2016, 06.07.2019, 20.09.2010, 01.09.2015 & 19.01.2021	Revival letters
A10	19.07.2016	Legal Notice
A11	--	Certified statement of Account pertaining to the Defendants Loan Accounts-0541856000984
A12	--	Certified statement of Account pertaining to the Defendants Loan Accounts -0541895003243/ 0541847005222
A13	--	Certified statement of Account pertaining to the Defendants Loan Accounts-0541898004514

¶78

OA 1155/2022

¶79

¶80

Witness Examined for the Defendant: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

¶81

-Nil -

¶82

-Nil -

¶83

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri Jyothiba Siddappa Jambagi Since Deceased through His Legal Heirs Diddappa Igeppa Jambagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Jyothiba Siddappa Jambagi Since Deceased through His Legal Heirs Diddappa Igeppa Jambagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federal Bank versus Aliyar

Sony Sebastian versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Rajesh Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S Vikas Agro Tech

Punjab National Bank versus Sh Balwant Chauhan

M/S Vikas Agrotech versus State Bank of India