Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Hanumappa Rep by Basavaraj and Ors.

DRT12 Nov 2025OA/607/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application seeking a Recovery Certificate for an agricultural loan of approx Rs.46.81 lakh against legal heirs, reducing interest to 6% p.a. due to the loan's agricultural purpose, and directed transfer to recovery officer.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for principal with interest at 6% per annum simple interest recoverable from estate and schedule properties; costs awarded to applicant.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Hanumappa Rep by Basavaraj… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 12^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.607/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Karnataka Grameena Bank Branch office at:

¶6

Galag Branch, Devadurga Tq-584116 Raichur District …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Basavaraj

¶9

S/o. Sri. Durgappa R/at: Akalakumpi Village, Devadurga Taluk Raichur District

¶10

Sri. Rangaswamy S/o Sri. Durgappa R/at: Akalakumpi Village, Devadurga Taluk Raichur District

¶11

Mrs. Basamma D/o. Sri. Durgappa R/at: Akalakumpi Village, Devadurga Taluk Raichur District

¶12

Mrs. Siddamma D/o. Sri Durgappa R/at: Akalakumpi Village, Devadurga Taluk

¶13

Raichur District ...DEFENDANTS

¶14

OA 607/2024

¶15

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : M & R Consult Defendants : Exparte

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act

¶20

1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.46,81,000-/ (Rupees forty six lakh eighty one thousand only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that Late. Hanumappa was the deceased borrower with defendants No.1 to 4 as his legal heirs

¶22

availed the Farm Mechanization loan credit facilities of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees four lakh ninety thousand only) from the applicant bank:-

¶23

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with sanction memorandum, memorandum of agreement and letters of revival in favor of the applicant bank.

¶24

It is further contended that, the defendants despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account

¶25

OA 607/2024

¶26

¶27

promptly and regularly, failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶28

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.

¶29

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 07.01.2025.

¶30

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A14 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶31

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.

¶32

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶33

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶34

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶35

OA 607/2024

¶36

¶37

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶38

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶39

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶40

remains unrebutted as defendant remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of hypothecation and mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶41

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶42

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶43

this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶44

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶45

are availed by Late Hanumappa ( deceased borrower) for

¶46

agricultural purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by

¶47

OA 607/2024

¶48

¶49

calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal, in view of

¶50

the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @6% p.a.(Simple).

¶51

In the result, OA.No.607/2024, stands allowed,

¶52

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶53

sum of Rs.46,81,000/- (Rupees forty six lakh eighty one thousand only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶54

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants to the extent of estate inherited by the deceased borrower Sri.

¶55

Hanumappa after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶56

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶57

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

¶58

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

OA 607/2024

¶60

¶61

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

¶62

in terms of this final order.

¶63

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶64

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

¶65

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶66

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶67

me in the Open Court, this the 12^th day of November, 2025].

¶68

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶69

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶70

ANNEXURES

¶71

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶72

AW-1: RaviKumar. P, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶73

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶74

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	28.04.2006	Original of the Application for Agricultural credit farm mechanization loan
A2	06.05.2006	Original of the Sanction memorandum
A3	15.05.2006	Original of the Memorandum of agreement
A4	10.05.2006	Original of the simple mortgage deed
A5	17.05.2006	Original of the Registration certificate
A6	17.05.2006	Original of the registration certificate
A7	31.03.2009	Original of the letter of revival from legal heirs
A8	06.02.2012	Original of the letter of revival
A9	23.01.2015	Original of the letter of revival from legal heirs
A10	02.01.2018	Original of the letter of revival from legal heirs

¶75

OA 607/2024

¶76

¶77

A11	01.09.2020	Original of the letter of revival from legal heirs
A12	22.05.2023	Original of the letter of revival from legal heirs
A13	28.11.2022	Original of legal notice
A14		Original of the statement of account certified under bankers book of evidence Act in respect of loan account No.60315325000106

¶78

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶79

-Nil -

¶80

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶81

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶82

PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Hanumappa Rep by Basavaraj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Hanumappa Rep by Basavaraj and Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Kala Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Malkeet Singh @Malkit Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Hopstop Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S Ambey India

State Bank of India versus Saravanan Mani

Canara Bank versus Mahantesh Arjun