AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r referred to as the 'plaintiffs') on payment of the principal amount with interest for three months namely June 1982 to August 1982 by setting aside the judgment of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wani dismissing Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 1983 on 27th March, 1985. 2. For the purposes of this second appeal the facts which are not in dispute are that on 14-4-1979 one Gopalrao Deshmukh obtained loan from the Bank by pledging gold ornaments. Account Nos. 27/18 and 27/19 were operated. On the same day Gopalrao Deshmukh gave a declaration in writing (Exh. 21) that the gold ornaments belonged to him and no other person has any claim against them. On L4-7-1979 Gopalrao Deshmukh also executed a promissory note in favour of the Bank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere the property of the co-parcenary. The learned trial Judge, however, held that "Letters of Administration" were necessary for claiming the ornaments and in the absence of "Letters of Administration" the plaintiffs were not entitled for return of the gold ornaments. The learned trial Judge, therefore, dismissed the suit. 6. While deciding the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs the appellate Court held that the "Letters of Administration" were not necessary for claiming back the gold ornaments. The appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and directed the Bank to return the ornaments on payment of loan and interest to the plaintiffs or any person authorised by them on execution of his security bond t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court, the finding rendered by the appellate Court suffers from perversity and needs to be set aside. In this respect Mr. Agrawal placed reliance on the following cases : (i) T.D. Gopalan v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras [1973]1SCR584 , wherein the Apex Court observed as under (para 9) : "The uniform practice in the matter of appreciation of evidence has been that if the trial Court has given cogent and detailed reasons for not accepting the testimony of a witness, the appellate Court in all fairness to it ought to deal with those reasons before proceeding to form a contrary opinion about accepting the testimony which has been rejected by the trial Court. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further submitted that even in the absence of the appellate Court discussing the reasons of the trial Court can give its own reasons for differing from the trial Court and in Second Appeal no interference can be made on that count. In this respect, he relied on the following cases : (i) Arumugham (dead) By LRs. v. Sundarambal [1999]2SCR950 wherein it is held as under (Para 14): "It is open to the first appellate Court to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and give its own reasons for accepting the evidence on one side or rejecting the evidence on the other side. It is not permissible for the second appellate Court to interfere with such findings of the first appellate Court only on the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loan amount. Hence the liability of the plaintiffs to pay interest for the entire period would continue. Mr. Agrawal also commented that the plaintiffs have not examined the son of plaintiff no. 1 who had gone to enquire about the loan amount with the Bank. In the absence of his examination Mr. Agrawal submitted that there was no offer by the plaintiffs to pay the loan amount. Hence their liability to pay interest cannot be restricted only for three months. Mr. Agrawal relied on the following cases : (i) Shrinarayan Rambilas v. Bhaskar Waman AIR 1954 Nag 193, it is held as under : "Interests does not cease on the giving of merely a notice unaccompanied by any actual tender of mortgage amount." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Bank in its pleading admitted that it was the son of plaintiff No. 1 who came to enquire about the loan amount. Mr. Chandurkar further submitted that actually the Bank had transferred another loan account in the name of the plaintiffs and accepted amount therein. The plaintiffs had shown their readiness and willingness to repay the loan amount but since beginning the Bank insisted for submission of "Letters of Administration" by the plaintiffs which was, in fact, not necessary, particularly when the Bank had transferred another loan account of the deceased in the name of the plaintiffs. Mr. Chandurkar further submitted that it had become clear to the plaintiffs that even if they repay the loan amount, the Bank would not return gold orna....