Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Doddappa

DRT8 May 2026OA/1357/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Adjudicated an original application under Section 19 of RDB Act 1993 filed by Karnataka Grameena Bank against two legal heirs for issuance of recovery certificate. Granted application with reduced interest due to agricultural purpose.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.33,54,114/- with future interest at 11.80% p.a. (up to filing) and 6% p.a. thereafter; recovery from inherited estate and schedule properties.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Doddappa — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 08^th Day of May, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1357/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Karnataka Grameena Bank, Turvihal Branch, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur District, Karnataka

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Doddappa S/o. Erappa R/at: Hogaranal Village, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur District, Karnataka- 584132

¶9

Smt. Sharanamma W/o. Somashekarappa R/at: Kalamangi Village, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur District, Karnataka- 584132

¶10

...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Rohith Ravi Kumar Defendants : Exparte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been

¶15

OA 1357/2024

¶16

¶17

filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.33,54,114/- (Rupees thirty three lakh fifty four thousand one hundred fourteen only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that Late Sanna Erappa and Late Somashekarappa were the deceased borrowers and the defendant No.1 and 2 are respectivally their legal heirs. The deceased borrower Late Sanna Erapp and defendant No.1 availed the Horticulture loan credit facilities of Rs.3,35,000/(Rupees three lakh thirty five thousand only) from the applicant bank.

¶19

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 letter, simple mortgage deed and letters of revival in favor of the applicant bank.

¶20

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

¶21

OA 1357/2024

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 14.02.2025.

¶25

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-17 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶28

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶29

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

OA 1357/2024

¶32

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants 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.

¶34

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶35

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

¶36

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶37

were availed by deceased borrowers for agricultural purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @6% p.a. (Simple).

¶38

OA 1357/2024

¶39

¶40

13. In the result, OA.No.1357/2024, stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶42

sum of Rs.33,54,114/- (Rupees thirty three lakh fifty four thousand one hundred forteen only) with further interest @ 11.80% p.a. (Simple),

¶43

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants No.1 and 2 to the extent of estate inherited by the deceased borrowers ( Late Sri. Sanna Erappa and Late Sri. Somashekarappa) 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.

¶44

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficients, the defendants

¶45

are liable to the extent of estate inherited by the deceased borrowers for the balance amount.

¶46

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶47

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

¶48

OA 1357/2024

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶52

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

¶53

in terms of this final order.

¶54

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶55

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

¶56

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶57

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 8^th day of May, 2026].

¶58

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶59

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Sashidhara, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	05.11.2005	Loan application
A2	31.01.2006	Loan Sanction
A3	16.02.2006	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans
A4	08.02.2006	Registered simple mortgage deed
A5	19.12.2008	Letter of revival executed by D1 and Sri. Sanna Erappa and Sri. Somashekarappa
A6	08.10.2011	Letter of revival executed by D1 and Sri. Sanna Erappa and Sri. Somashekarappa

¶65

OA 1357/2024

¶66

¶67

A7	23.05.2014	Letter of revival executed by D1 and Sri. Sanna Erappa and Sri. Somashekarappa
A8	20.05.2017	Letter of revival executed by D1 and Sri. Sanna Erappa and Sri. Somashekarappa
A9	20.05.2017	Letter of revival executed by Sri. Somashekarappa
A10	01.01.2018	Acknowledgement security/liability from mortgagors executed by D1 and Sri. Sanna Erappa and Sri. Somashekarappa
A11	14.02.2020	Letter of revival executed by D1 and Sri. Sanna Erappa and Sri. Somashekarappa
A12	14.02.2020	Letter of revival executed by Sri. Somashekarappa
A13	28.10.2022	Letter of revival executed by D1
A14	28.10.2022	Letter of revival : Legal heirs of deceased borrowers executed by D1
A15	28.10.2022	Letter of revival : Legal heirs of deceased borrowers executed by D1
A16	04.11.2023	Statement of Accounts from 09.07.2005 to 04.11.2023 with certificate
A17	11.03.2024	Legal notice

¶68

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

¶69

-Nil -

¶70

-Nil -

¶71

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Doddappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Doddappa

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

Sri S H Siddappa versus State Bank of India

Nishana E H versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Madhu. M.B

Md Mabud Alam Biswas versus Punjab National Bank

Uco Bank versus Smt Sampa Dutta

State Bank of India versus M/S Amravati Trading Company Acting through Its Proprietor Shri Raj Shubhakaran