Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ponnamma

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/680/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank’s Original Application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The Tribunal held that the Defendants, as legal heirs of the deceased borrower, are liable for the debt up to the value of the inherited estate. A Recovery Certificate was issued for the claimed amount with interest at 7% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate drawn and transferred to Recovery for enforcement of Rs. 27,72,805.50 plus pending and future interest at 7% p.a. from the schedule property.

Canara Bank versus Ponnamma — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.680/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank, Gonikoppal Branch, Kodagu District, Rep. by its Manager,

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Smt. Ponnamma K B, Alias Mala, W/o. Late K M Belliappa, Kaikeri village, Gonikoppal -571213.

¶10

Sri. Mandanna K B, S/o. Late K M Belliappa, Kaikeri Village, Gonikoppal -571213.

¶11

Sri. Thamana K B, S/o. Late K M Belliappa, Kaikeri Village, Gonikoppal -571213.

¶12

...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Sri. Manik B T Defendants : Ex parte

OA 680/2022

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. 27,72,805.50 (Rupees twenty-seven lakh seventy-two thousand eight hundred five and paisa fifty only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶19

It is the case of the Applicant that the borrower of the loans, Sri K. M. Belliappa, passed away on 18.03.2020, and hence his legal heirs, namely, his wife and sons, have been arrayed as Defendants. The deceased borrower had availed a KCC Loan of Rs. 3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy-Five Thousand Only) and had also availed a Kissan Overdraft of Rs. 7,50,000/(Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand Only).

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

OA 680/2022

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

Despite, taking out the summons, there was no appearance of Defendants. Hence, they were called absent and set ex parte on 22.09.2023.

¶27

The Applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed

¶28

Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-3 to A18, 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 680/2022

¶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

¶38

remains unrebutted as Defendants remained ex parte. The Defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased borrower; hence, the Defendants are liable only to the extent of the property inherited from the deceased. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the applicant is found admissible and sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the defaults committed by the Defendants in repaying the loan amount due.

¶39

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

¶40

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes

¶41

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

¶42

Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed

¶43

for agricultural purpose and also the fact that OA claim is arrived

¶44

OA 680/2022

¶45

¶46

at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 7.00% (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶47

13. In the result, OA.No.680/2022, is allowed,

¶48

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶49

of Rs. 27,72,805.50 (Rupees twenty seven lakh seventy two thousand eight hundred five and paisa fifty only) with pendente lite and future interest of 7.00% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till the realization, from 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 proceedings against schedule property. Property schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶50

ii) The Defendants, being the legal heirs of the deceased

¶51

borrower, are liable only to the extent of the estate inherited from the deceased.

¶52

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶53

OA 680/2022

¶54

¶55

for which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶56

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

¶57

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶58

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed

¶59

of in terms of this final order.

¶60

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶61

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

¶62

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶63

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25^th day of November, 2025)

¶64

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

¶65

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶66

ANNEXURES

¶67

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Sri. Arun Kurian Crown, Senior Manager of Applicant Bank.

¶69

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶70

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	--	Evidence affidavit
A2	--	List of Documents
A3	27.11.2014	Mortgage Deed
A4	10.12.2014	Kisan credit loan application
A5	10.12.2014	Sanction memorandum

¶71

OA 680/2022

¶72

¶73

A6	10.12.2014	Hypothecation deed
A7	12.12.2014	Kisan overdraft loan application
A8	18.12.2014	Mortgage deed
A9	--	Sanction memorandum
A10	19.12.2014	Agreement and Deed for Kisan OD
A11	23.10.2017	Revival letter
A12	01.12.2017	Revival letter
A13	--	Revival letter
A14	04.01.2020	Revival letter
A15	--	Reminder letter
A16	--	Reminder letter
A17	08.03.2022	Statement of account
A18	08.03.2022	Statement of account

¶74

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

¶75

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Ponnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ponnamma

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

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen