Dismissed

South Malabar Gramin Bank v. K.K.Velukutty

Kerala HC29 Jan 2016RSA/10/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the bank challenged the lower courts' dismissal of its loan recovery suit. The lower courts had waived the outstanding debt under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, classifying the borrower couple as 'small farmers.' The Court held that for pooled landholdings, only the largest individual holding counts. Since the largest holding was 4.37 acres, the d

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; the lower courts' view that the defendants qualify as small farmers and their loan is liable to be waived was upheld.

South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs K.K.Velukutty — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/9TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

RSA.No. 10 of 2016 ()

¶6

---------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS.13/2013 OF ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT-II, KALPETTA DATED 09-03-2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS.NO. 135/2007 OF SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY DATED 08-03-2013

¶7

APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF :

¶8

SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK

¶9

(NOW KERALA GRAMIN BANK), PADICHIRA BRANCH WAYANAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS :

¶12

1. K.K.VELUKUTTY

¶13

AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.SWAMI, KAMALANKUNNATH (H), SEETHAMOUNT PADICHIRA (DIED), PIN- 673 579.

¶14

2. MADHAVI, AGED 56 YEARS

¶15

W/O.VELUKUTTY, KAMMALANKUNNATH (H), SEETHAMOUNT (POST) PADICHIRA AMSOM DESOM, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK PIN: 673 579.

¶16

3. JOBIN J.GEORGE (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN, T.U.GEORGE ALIAS VARGHESE S/O.ULAHANNAN, THOTTUPURATH (H), CHAMAPPARA SEETHAMOUNT (POST), PADICHIRA AMSOM DESOM SULTHANBATHERY TALUK, PIN: 673 579.

¶17

4. LADHIKA, AGED 30 YEARS

¶18

D/O.VELUKUTTY, KAMALANKUNNATH (H), SEETHAMOUNT (POST) PADICHIRA AMSOM DESOM, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK

¶19

PIN: 673 579.

¶20

5. REMYA, AGED 28 YEARS

¶21

D/O.VELUKUTTY, KAMMALANKUNNATH (H), SEETHAMOUNT (POST) PADICHIRA AMSOM DESOM, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK PIN- 673 579.

¶22

R2, R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

¶23

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶26

R.S.A. No.10 of 2016

¶27

Dated 29^th January, 2016.

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The plaintiff in a suit for realisation of money is the appellant in this second appeal.

¶30

The plaintiff is a bank. The defendants who are

¶31

husband and wife had availed an agriculture loan from the plaintiff bank. As the defendants have not repaid the said loan as per the terms agreed upon, a sum of Rs.3,21,496/- was outstanding in the loan account. The suit was, therefore, filed for recovery of the said amount with interest from the defendants. The defendants did not dispute the balance outstanding in the loan account. However, they contended that the balance outstanding in their loan account is liable to be waived by the bank as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 ('the Scheme' for short). The trial court accepted the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Though the plaintiff took up the matter in appeal, the

¶32

RSA No.10 of 2016

¶33

¶34

appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence this second appeal by the defeated plaintiff.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff as also

¶36

the learned counsel for the defendants.

¶37

Clauses 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 and the Explanations 1

¶38

and 2 beneath clause 3.7 of the Scheme read thus :

¶39

3.5 'Marginal Farmer' means farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land up to 1 hectare (2.5 acres).

¶40

3.6 'Small Farmer' means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and up to 2 hectares (5 acres).

¶41

3.7 'Other Farmer' means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land or more than 2 hectares (more than 5 acres).

¶42

Explanation :

¶43

The classification of eligible farmers as per the above landholding criteria under the Scheme would be based on the total extent of land owned by the farmer either singly or as joint holders (in the case of an owner-farmer) on the total extent of land cultivated by the farmer (as tenant or share cropper), at the time of sanction of the loan, irrespective of any subsequent changes in ownership or possession.

¶44

In the case of borrowing by more than one farmer by pooling their landholdings, the size of the largest landholding in the pool shall be the basis for the purpose of classification of all farmers

¶45

RSA No.10 of 2016

¶46

¶47

in that pool as 'marginal farmer' or 'small farmer' or 'other farmer'.

¶48

The courts below found that the defendants would fall under the category of 'small farmer' as defined in the Scheme and therefore, the outstanding liability in their loan account is liable to be waived. The fact that if the defendants would fall under the category of 'small farmer' as defined in the Scheme, their loan outstanding is liable to be waived is not in dispute. The contention of the plaintiff bank is that the defendants would not fall under the category of 'small farmer' as defined in the Scheme as both of them together had 6.61 acres of land at the time when the loan was availed. According to the plaintiff, as the defendants together had 6.61 acres of land at the time when the loan was availed, they would come only under the category of 'other farmer' as defined in the Scheme. Relying on Explanation (1) to clause 3 of the Scheme, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the classification of the eligible farmers under the Scheme is based on the total extent

¶49

RSA No.10 of 2016

¶50

¶51

of cultivated land held by the farmer as 'owner' or 'tenant' or 'share cropper', and since the total extent of the cultivated land held by the defendants is more than 5 acres, they cannot be treated under the category 'small farmer', as defined in the Scheme. The learned counsel, relying on the definition of 'marginal farmer' as contained in the Scheme, also pointed out that as the defendants were cultivating their respective holdings together, they can be considered only as share croppers.

¶52

I do not find merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The expression 'share cropper' is used in clause 3.5 of the Scheme while defining 'marginal farmer' in contra distinction to the expressions 'owner' or 'tenant'. In other words, the expression 'share cropper' is used in the said clause to refer to persons who are carrying on agricultural activities in lands in their capacities other than as the owners or tenants of the land. The defendants are admittedly, owners of the land. As such, they cannot be treated as share croppers. If they cannot be treated

¶53

RSA No.10 of 2016

¶54

¶55

as share croppers, they can only be treated as persons who have pooled their lands for agricultural operations. If they can be treated only as persons who have pooled their lands for agricultural operations, their case is governed by Explanation 2 to clause 3 of the Scheme. It has come out that the extent of the holding of the first defendant is 4.37 acres and the extent of the holding of the second defendant is 2.24 acres. The size of the largest holding being 4.37 acres, the said extent alone can be reckoned as the land holding of the defendants. In the said view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the view taken by the courts below.

¶56

The second appeal, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶59

(true copy)

¶60

tgs

South Malabar Gramin Bank v. K.K.Velukutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

South Malabar Gramin Bank v. K.K.Velukutty

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

Khadeeja Vs Shiju

Ashokan Vs Bhaskaran

Sekharan Vs Chettattu Suresh

P.Sasidharan Vs Fasalul Rahiman

Joseph Thomas Vs Baby Mathews

Nani Vs Viswambharan