Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ponugoti Satyanarayana Rao (Died)

DRT12 Nov 2025OA/375/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an order for money recovery filed by the State Bank of India against the deceased borrower and his heirs. The bank was awarded the principal sum, interest, and costs, while the liability of the heirs was limited to the estate devolved from the deceased.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the OA for recovery of Rs. 30,52,740 plus future interest at 15% p.a. and costs against the defendants jointly and severally, limited to the devolved estate of the deceased.

State Bank of India versus Ponugoti Satyanarayana Rao (Died) — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER,2025 PRESENT: SRt GUMMADI cOptCHAND, pRES|DING OFFTCER

¶2

OA. No. 375 OF 2O2S

¶3

Between :

¶4

State Bank of lndia, R.P Road Branch, Near Clock Tower, Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Ponugoti Satyanarayana Rao (died),

¶8

Ponugoti Narsimha Rao, S/o Late Satyanarayana Rao Age 40 years Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.no. 2-3-6, Jinnai Chinta, H/o Thanedar Pally Village, Gurrampode Mandal,

¶9

Nalgonda District - 508 256.

¶10

Wo Nagulanvancha Narsimha Rao Aged 35years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Veldandapadu Revenue Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District - 508 256. Defendants

¶11

(oA. No.37s/212sl

¶12

Counsel for the parties :

¶13

For The Applicant A.V.S. Ramakrishna For the Defendant Exparte Reserved on 07.11.2025 Pronounced on 12.11.2025 Upload in website on 13.11.2025

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.30,52,7401- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand seven Hundred and Forty only) i.e Rs.l4,44,5341- and Rs.l6,08,20G/- together with future interest @^{15%o p.a with Half-yearly rests} as on 19.02.202s till the date of realization and in default for sale of Mortgaged property as mentioned in the Schedule to OA.

¶16

¶17

in the application, the Applicant Bank no.1 was an agriculturist who availed of Rs. 2,75,000/- and SBH kisan card for a ble within 10 yearly installments with yearly rates and the defendants

¶18

(OA. No. 37sl202s)

¶19

executed Hypothecation agreement dated^.19.0g.2011 in favor of the applicant bank. The defendant no. 1 created mortgage morefully mentioned in schedule to OA and executed Memorandum of deposit of tifle deeds on 04.0g.2011. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank classified the account as NPA and issued Legal notice on 0g.07.2020 . The applicant bank states that defendant no. 1 died on 03.02.2020 and defendants no. 2 and 3 are the regar heirs of Defendant no. 1 and the applicant bank issued Legar Notice on 11.09.2020 to the Defendants no. 2 and 3. rnspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

¶21

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 30.10.2025.

¶22

¶23

Mr. Gali Venkateswar Rao, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶24

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶27

¶28

To substantiate the case of the I of the Applicant Bank was

¶29

(oA. No. 37sl202s)

¶30

examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.15. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶31

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶32

The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.30,52,740/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Only) i.e Rs.l4,44,534/- and Rs.l6,08,206/- together with future interest @ 15% p.a as on 19.02.2025 till the date of realization.

¶33

¶34

The Applicant Bank is entitled to^proceed against the Mortgaged Property mentioned in the Schedule to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

The liability of the Defendants No. 2 and 3 is limited^only to^the extent of the estate devolved on them from the^deceased Defendant No. 1.

¶36

That Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶37

I file a cost memo within two weeks from the r. *i'^i! 1 2 ij,.]d 2il25 .. ; ' /r " . ...^j'.::. -" ,. --' :"-;i.^'''.' i_^t> . ..-.-- t--:i:::"

¶38

(OA. No. 37sl202s)

¶39

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12h day of Nov, 2025)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

, *&<br>.'E=F
:-*i,, 1 Z ft0tr ZIH *
W,-.#

¶46

fi"dffir
A.6st Rsglrsttar
i;:').i, ttYDEfIAEAD'

State Bank of India v. Ponugoti Satyanarayana Rao (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ponugoti Satyanarayana Rao (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marisetti Venkata Krishna Rao versus Axis Bank

Bank of India versus Mr. Bhaskar Voruganti

Smt.Gorripati Padma Tulasi versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Komatireddy Bhoji Reddy

Ismath Saniya versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt. Shaik Dilshad Begum