R.S.A.No.580 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.580 of 2009 Date of Decision : 09.07.2009 Palwinder Singh and others ...Appellant Versus State Bank of India ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for recovery of unpaid amount of loan, was decreed. The plaintiff-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,47,180/- alongwith future interest @ 12.25% per annum with half yearly rest, till its realization by sale of hypothecated and mortgaged property. It is the case of the plaintiff that loan of Rs.2,25,000/- for the purchase of tractor and Rs.25,000/- for crop loan, was advanced to Sampuran Singh. Sampuran Singh purchased tractor bearing Chassis No.106953, Engine No.S3-24-A33110, Model No.MF-1035-D1 from Shivalik Industrial Equipment & Tractors, Morinda, vide Bill No.386 and the same was hypothecated with the plaintiff-Bank. The plaintiff in its evidence produced Ex.P-2 Pre Sanction Survey and Appraisal Report, Ex.P-3 Form-II of grant of loan, Ex.P-6 agreement for hypothecation, Ex.P-7 is the arrangement letter dated 30.7.1999 of tractor, whereby Sampuran Singh agreed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest by way of half yearly installments and Ex.P-8 is the letter of arrangement of R.S.A.No.580 of 2009 2 crop loan. Some other documents executed by borrower were also produced in evidence. On the basis of the documents produced in evidence, it was found that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.3,47,180/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 12.25% per annum with half yearly rest. The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased-Sampuran Singh. They have not led any evidence except examining one of the defendant Jagmohan Singh as DW-1. The said decree was affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the tractor against which Sampuran Singh has taken loan, is not with the appellants nor the registration number of the tractor has been disclosed in the hypothecation documents. The hypothecation documents discloses the chassis number, engine number and model number of the tractor purchased. In view of the said fact, it cannot be said that the tractor was not purchased by Sampuran Singh, after taking loan from the plaintiff. The plea that the tractor is not available with the defendants is a self-serving statement. No reliance can be placed upon such evidence. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact in respect of availment of loan by Sampuran Singh. The finding recorded by both the Courts below do not give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. 09.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE