Allowed

Canara Bank v. Rajappa

DRT11 Sept 2026OA/1296/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte hearing under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a Recovery Certificate against the legal heir of a deceased borrower. Despite the defendant's absence, the Tribunal found the evidence sufficient to prove the loan availed, mortgage creation, and default. The court allowed the claim with a reduced interest rate of 6% p.a. (simple) due to the agricultural purpose of the loan.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued allowing recovery of Rs. 93,61,566.86 with 6% p.a. simple interest from filing date, executable against scheduled property/distributor's inheritance or other assets if proceeds insufficient; cost of proceedings allowed.

Canara Bank versus Rajappa — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 11^th Day of September, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer OA.No.1296/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Branch at; Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural – 561 203

¶7

Rep by its Chief Manager

¶8

Mr. N Ravikumar …APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri. Rajappa N (Since Deceased by Lrs)

¶11

Sri. Hanumantaraju S/o. late Rajappa N Aged about 65 years R/at: Narasaiahna Agrahara, Madhure Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural – 561 203 ...DEFENDANT

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Showbhagya V Defendant : Ex parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed

¶16

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs 93,61,566.86/- (Rupees Ninety-Three Lakhs Sixty-One Thousand

¶17

Five Hundred and Sixty-Six and Paisa Eighty-Six Only) with further

¶18

OA-1296/2024

¶19

¶20

interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant is the legal heir of the deceased borrower. The Late borrower Sri. Rajappa availed an ALDL loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Lakhs Only).

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loan, the defendant executed the necessary loan documents along with simple mortgage deed.

¶23

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶24

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.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set ex parte on 07.04.2025.

¶26

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 A-8 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

OA-1296/2024

¶30

¶31

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶32

claim as against the defendant?

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remained ex parte. 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 facility as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶36

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal find both these issues are in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility is availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived

¶38

at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶39

In the result, OA.No.1296/2024 stands allowed,

¶40

OA-1296/2024

¶41

¶42

i. The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of

¶43

Rs. 93,61,566.86/- (Rupees Ninety-Three Lakhs Sixty-One Thousand

¶44

Five Hundred and Sixty-Six and Paisa Eighty-Six Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple), from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant, to the extent of their inheritance of

¶45

any estate form the deceased borrower, Sri. Rajappa N, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶46

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the

¶47

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶48

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶49

which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶50

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶51

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶52

OA-1296/2024

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶57

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 11^th Day of September, 2026].

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1 V Yogesh Kumar, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

ANNEX URES	Date	DESCRIPTION
A1	15.05.2015	Common application cum appraisal form for credit facilities for agricultural loan
A2	15.05.2015	Sanctioned memorandum
A3	15.05.2015	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans
A4	29.04.2015	Simple mortgage deed for agricultural advances
A5	11.04.2018	Letter of revival
A6	05.02.2021	Letter of revival
A7	06.01.2024	Demand notice
A8	19.01.2024	Statement of account along with 2A certificate with respect to A/c no. 0664883014977
Witn	ess Examine	d for the Defendant: -Nil

¶65

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

¶66

-Nil -

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Rajappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Rajappa

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

Punjab National Bank versus Sunil Rajbanshi and Ors.

Nachattar Singh versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Sri Ajay Raj versus Sir M Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Hadimba Agro Industry and Another versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Bank of India versus Ram Patidar

Smt Bhagya T C versus Canara Bank