Judgment :- This appeal is directed against order dated 9.6.2003 in O.S.No.207 of 1999 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the defendant bank is not entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 19,403/- from the plaintiff and for directing to release and return to the plaintiff, the share documents annexed in the plaint schedule and also directing the defendant to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages, was dismissed. 2. The appellant filed the suit with the following averments: The plaintiff was a constituent of defendant bank and he obtained a cash credit loan of Rs. 2,85,000/- in 1995 pledging the shares of various companies, which are mentioned in the schedule. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the plaintiff made regular repayments till early 1996. Thereafter, the plaintiff due to financial constraints could not make the payments and wrote a letter dated 7.8.1997 offering to pay monthly installments of Rs.3000/-. The defendant agreed for the same and received payments made at Rs.3000/- per month since August, 1997. The Manager of the defendant's branch advised that if one time payment of the principal amount due and Rs.12,000/- towards interest is made before 15.3.1998, it would be treated as full and final payment, waiving the penal interest. It was also agreed that on making such one time payment, the shares of the plaintiff pledged with the defendant would be released and returned. Accordingly, the plaintiff made payment of Rs. 25,465/- on 13.3.1998 towards principal and Rs.12,000/- towards interest. The defendant accepted the amount and closed the account and showed the balance in the statement of account as ‘Nil'. In spite of repeated requests, the defendant did not return the share certificates as promised. The plaintiff was surprised to receive a letter dated 3.3.1999 from the defendant stating that there was still an outstanding amount of Rs.19,403/-. By illegally retaining the share certificates, the plaintiff was deprived of the benefits accrued to the shareholders. The plaintiff wrote several letters to the defendant, but in vain. he plaintiff came to know that the defendant was attempting to part with some of the shares by getting the same transferred in their favour for the purpose of adjusting against the plaintiff's account in liquidation of the outstanding amount of Rs.19,403/-. The plaintiff wrote several letters to the defendant, but in vain. he plaintiff came to know that the defendant was attempting to part with some of the shares by getting the same transferred in their favour for the purpose of adjusting against the plaintiff's account in liquidation of the outstanding amount of Rs.19,403/-. The plaintiff got issued a notice through advocate calling upon the defendant to return the share certificates but there has been no reply from the defendant. The plaintiff is not only entitled for return of the share certificates but also for damages for the shock and mental tension due to the unscrupulous and obstinate stand of the defendant, in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. The respondent-defendant filed a written statement contending in brief as follows: It is true that the plaintiff pledged shares of various companies with the defendant along with his wife. Under the rules relating to Income Recognition and Non Performance of Advances prescribed by Reserve Bank of India, interest will not be debited from the account from the date of non performance of the account, i.e., 1.1.1996 in the present case and therefore, copy of the statement of account furnished to the plaintiff is not a discharge in his favour. The plaintiff has to pay the principal amount of Rs.19,403/- as communicated to him. Out of the shares pledged by the plaintiff, the defendant purchased 100 shares of M/s. Aurabindo Pharma Limited by exercising their rights as pledge on 11.3.1999 and on 24.4.1999 the formalities of transfer were completed and the loan account was closed on that day and the amount of Rs.20,270/- was appropriated towards outstanding loan and the balance of Rs.29,730/- is lying to the credit of the plaintiff. This was conveyed to the plaintiff by letter dated 21.9.1999. Before purchase of the shares, the defendant by letter dated 3.3.1999 informed the plaintiff the possible sale of the shares. The plaintiff approached the ombudsman and his claim was rejected upholding the right of the defendant in respect of the pledged shares. 4. On the strength of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the defendant bank promised to close the loan account provided the plaintiff paid the entire principle sum and Rs. 12,000/- ? 2) Whether the plaintiff discharged the loan amount? 3) Whether the defendant is not entitled to demand sum of Rs.19,403/- from the plaintiff ? On the strength of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the defendant bank promised to close the loan account provided the plaintiff paid the entire principle sum and Rs. 12,000/- ? 2) Whether the plaintiff discharged the loan amount? 3) Whether the defendant is not entitled to demand sum of Rs.19,403/- from the plaintiff ? 4) Whether the defendant bank can be directed to release the shares pledged to it by the plaintiff? 5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages from the defendant bank as claimed in the plaint? 6) To what relief? 5. The plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-17 were marked on his side. The manager of the defendant Bank was examined as DW-1. 6. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court held on issue No.1 that there is no evidence to show that the defendant bank promised to close the loan account as one time settlement and on issue No.2, the trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that he discharged loan amount completely and on issue No.3, the trial Court held that the defendant is entitled to demand a sum of Rs.19,403/-. On issue No.4, the trial Court held that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.863 of 2002 for return of the shares of 17 companies and the said application was allowed and the plaintiff received all the shares pledged with the defendant and hence no further relief was required to be granted. On issue No.5, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any damages. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with costs. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-plaintiff preferred the present appeal. 8. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent are heard. Records are perused. 9. The points, which arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1) Whether the appellant-plaintiff is not liable to pay amount of Rs.19,403/-? 2) Whether the respondent-defendant is not entitled to sell the shares of the appellant-plaintiff? 3) Whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by him ? POINT NO.1: 10. 9. The points, which arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1) Whether the appellant-plaintiff is not liable to pay amount of Rs.19,403/-? 2) Whether the respondent-defendant is not entitled to sell the shares of the appellant-plaintiff? 3) Whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by him ? POINT NO.1: 10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per the statement of account Ex.A-2 furnished by the respondent-defendant, the balance due is 'nil', which supports the plaintiff's claim that the entire debt was discharged as one time settlement but the defendant retained the shares of the plaintiff unlawfully and without giving any prior notice appropriated the value of the share certificates towards the alleged outstanding amount of Rs.19,403/- under a purported transfer of the shares to themselves and such transfer is illegal being violative of Section 176 of the Contract Act and even the remaining shares were returned by the defendant towards fag end of the trial only when the plaintiff filed an application for their return. He further contended that the defendant informed the plaintiff about the proposed sale of the shares by letter Ex.A-10 dated 19.4.1999 but even before that date, the defendants have already sold the shares on 11.3.1999 itself as per the averment in the written statement. He would further contend that there was no occasion for the defendant to put the shares of the plaintiff to sale, as even according to PW-1, it was not a non-performing account and the trial court failed to consider the same. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant, on the other hand, contended that as the plaintiff failed to repay the amount as per the terms of the agreement, the account became a non performing one and interest from the said date is not shown in the statement of account as it was kept in the suspense account and the respondent-bank exercised their right as pledgee after due notice. 12. It is not disputed that the plaintiff availed cash credit loan of Rs.2,85,000/- from the defendant in 1995 by pledging certain shares of various companies as mentioned in the plaint schedule and that he made some payments towards the loan from time to time till middle of 1996 and thereafter committed default. 12. It is not disputed that the plaintiff availed cash credit loan of Rs.2,85,000/- from the defendant in 1995 by pledging certain shares of various companies as mentioned in the plaint schedule and that he made some payments towards the loan from time to time till middle of 1996 and thereafter committed default. It is also not disputed that he addressed a letter Ex.A-1 dated 7.8.1997 seeking permission to pay the balance amount by installments of Rs.3000/- per month. In Ex.A-1, the plaintiff further requested for waiver of penal interest. DW-1 admitted in the evidence that the plaintiff did address letter Ex.A-1, but they did not give any reply. The specific case of the plaintiff is that on the suggestion made by the then Manager of the defendant's bank, he paid a sum of Rs.25,465/- on 13.3.1998 and also a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards principal by way of one time settlement and in full quittance of the entire amount due under the loan account and on such payment, the account was also closed and a statement of account Ex.A-2 was furnished to him showing the balance as `Nil' as on 31.3.1998. Payment of such amounts by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant. But, in the written statement, they denied that there was any offer of one time settlement and the payments were made by the plaintiff in pursuance thereof. However, in the evidence, DW-1 who was the Branch Manager of the defendant bank since 30.4.1998 categorically admitted that they made a suggestion orally to the plaintiff for one time settlement, if he pays the amount in lumpsum before March, 1998, but they did not give any letter in writing. He further admitted that in pursuance of the oral suggestion, the plaintiff has paid the amount of Rs.25,465/- on 31.3.1998 and also issued a cheque for Rs.12,000/- towards interest on 31.3.1998. He further admitted that in Ex.A-2, it is shown that the balance is nil. Ex.A-2 also shows that subsequent to the letter Ex.A-1, the plaintiff has been paying Rs.3000/- every month and on 13.3.1998, he paid Rs.25,465/- and on 31.3.1998, the balance is shown as nil. Though Rs.12,000/- towards interest is not shown in Ex.A-2, the said payment is admitted by DW-1, according to whom it was kept in the suspense account because there was still an outstanding balance amount due. Though Rs.12,000/- towards interest is not shown in Ex.A-2, the said payment is admitted by DW-1, according to whom it was kept in the suspense account because there was still an outstanding balance amount due. It is only in Ex.A-7 dated 3.3.1999 that the defendant has for the first time stated that a sum of Rs.19,403/- was still due as on 27.1.1999 failing which the bank will be compelled to see that the securities are dematerialized, in case of necessity. Prior to the date of Ex.A-7, the defendants have never addressed any letter to the plaintiff stating that some more amount was still due. The plaintiff addressed a letter Ex.A-3 dated 25.10.1998 wherein he stated that though he closed the loan account, he was not issuing a statement regarding the loan paid on 31.3.1998 and also seeking information as to whether the lean on the securities has been lifted as on 31.3.1998. In Ex.A-3, the plaintiff referred to the assurance given by the then Branch Manager Lakshmi Narayana. The defendant gave a reply Ex.A-8 dated 21.11.998 offering to part with some of the securities and stating that the remaining securities will be lying with the bank till the final settlement is reached. In Ex.A-8, the defendant did not however specify as to what was the amount still due. The plaintiff's wife addressed another letter Ex.A-4 dated 4.12.1998 in reply to defendant's letter dated 21.11.1998 reiterating that the account has been closed as on 31.3.1998 and there was no question of any interest still being due. Admittedly, no reply was given to Ex.A-4. DW-1 admitted that they have not intimated the plaintiff about the interest accumulated during the period from 1996 to 31.3.1998 in writing and they have also not filed any calculation memo showing the interest that has accumulated for the said period. He does not know whether the lumpsum amount collected by the plaintiff in March, 1998 was with a view to settle the account and he does not know with what intention Ex.A-2 was issued by his predecessor. One Lakshmi Narayana was stated to be the predecessor of DW-1, but he is not examined. In the absence of his evidence, the testimony of PW-1 that the amount of Rs.25,165/- towards principal paid on 13.3.1998 and the amount of Rs.12,000/- towards interest paid on 31.3.1998 were paid in pursuance of the offer of one time settlement remains uncontroverted. One Lakshmi Narayana was stated to be the predecessor of DW-1, but he is not examined. In the absence of his evidence, the testimony of PW-1 that the amount of Rs.25,165/- towards principal paid on 13.3.1998 and the amount of Rs.12,000/- towards interest paid on 31.3.1998 were paid in pursuance of the offer of one time settlement remains uncontroverted. The plea of the plaintiff regarding one time settlement is fortified by reference to the assurance of the then Branch Manager in Ex.A-3, letter of the plaintiff which is not refuted by the defendants in their reply Ex.A-8. No reason or explanation is offered for non-examination of the then Branch Manager Lakshmi Narayana, who is a material witness, as according to PW-1, it is only on his assurance that he made payments of Rs.25,465/- towards principal and Rs.12,000/- towards interest in full quittance. The fact that the plaintiff was making payments by monthly installments of Rs.3,000/- till March 1998 and that he made lumpsum payment of Rs.25,465/- towards principal and Rs.12,000/- towards interest in the month of March, 1998 coupled with the fact that the statement of account Ex.A-2 given by the defendant shows the balance as `Nil' as on 31.3.1998 fortify the contention of the plaintiff that the said payments were made in full quittance and therefore the balance was shown as nil in Ex.A-2. The said contention of the plaintiff remains uncontroversial as the then Branch Manager Lakshmi Narayana is not examined and DW-1 the successor manager merely says that he does not know whether lumpsum payments were made with a view to settle the account. 13. According to the defendant, as the plaintiff committed default in payment of quarterly interest consecutively for two terms from January to June, 1996, his account was treated as NPA (Non Performing Asset) as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and therefore the amount of Rs.12,000/- paid by the plaintiff towards interest was kept in suspense account and it was not shown in Ex.A-2. DW-1 categorically admitted that from January 1997, the account of the plaintiff became performing account since they started receiving the amount. Exs.A-1 and A-2 show that from September 1997 onwards, the plaintiff has been paying the installments of Rs.3000/- per month. DW-1 categorically admitted that from January 1997, the account of the plaintiff became performing account since they started receiving the amount. Exs.A-1 and A-2 show that from September 1997 onwards, the plaintiff has been paying the installments of Rs.3000/- per month. Thus, when the account has become a performing one with revival of steady inflows, the question of the account continuing to be a non-performing one, because the plaintiff committed default in payment of interest for two consecutive terms in 1996, does not stand to reason. Even assuming for a moment that the plaintiff's loan account was treated as Non Performing Asset in the year 1996, with the resumption of payments, the account became a performing one in 1997 as admitted by DW-1. When that is so, treating the account as `NPA' even in 1998 and keeping the amount of Rs.12,000/- in suspense account without crediting the same to the loan account is untenable. When once the loan account is found to be a performing account and the payment of Rs.25,465/- towards principal and Rs.12,000/- towards interest made in March 1998 were shown to have been made in pursuance of offer of one time settlement and the balance is also shown as nil in Ex.A-2 as on 31.3.1998, the question of accrual of any further interest to any period subsequent to 31.3.1998 does not arise. The claim of the defendant made for the first time in their notice Ex.A-7 dated 3.3.1999 showing further liability of Rs.19,403/- towards interest is equally unsustainable. The conduct of the defendant in treating the loan account as `NPA' even after its revival by regular payments and keeping the amount of Rs.12,000/- in suspense account without giving credit to the same against the loan account and claiming further amount of Rs.19,403/- as interest for the subsequent period even after showing the balance as `nil' in Ex.A-2 as on 31.3.1998 is totally unjustifiable. The contention of the defendant that because the account was treated as `NPA', the amount of Rs.12,000/- paid towards interest was not shown in Ex.A-2 and therefore the account cannot be deemed to have been closed on 31.3.1998 cannot be countenanced. If really, the account was not closed on that day, there is no reason why the balance was shown as `nil' in Ex.A-2. If really, the account was not closed on that day, there is no reason why the balance was shown as `nil' in Ex.A-2. There is absolutely nothing to show that the plaintiff was informed that the amount of Rs.12,000/- paid by him was kept in suspense account because the loan account continued to be treated as `NPA' and that further amount towards interest was still due. Even in Ex.A-7 dated 3.3.1999, the defendant has not stated that the loan account was treated as `NPA' and the interest of Rs.12,000/- was paid on 31.3.1998 was kept in suspense account. As the loan account was renewed by subsequent payments and it became a performing asset as admitted by DW-1, the question of keeping the amount of Rs.12,000/- under suspense account or claiming any further amount towards interest does not arise as the balance as on 31.3.1998 is shown as nil in Ex.A-2. POINT NO.2: 14. It is not disputed that the defendant has sold some of the shares of Aurabindo Pharma Limited under pledge to themselves and appropriated the sale proceeds towards the amount allegedly due. It is averred in the written statement that the shares were purchased by the defendant on 11.3.1999 and loan account was closed on 24.4.1999 by appropriating an amount of Rs.20,270/- towards outstanding loan and balance of Rs.29,730/- was lying to the credit of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the transfer application was approved by the Registrar of Transfers on 24.4.1999. The suit was filed on 21.4.1999. In the evidence, DW-1 stated that on 24.4.1999, the plaintiff's account was closed by selling the shares of Aurabindo Pharma. In the cross examination, DW-1 admitted that they have not filed any document to show that transfer of the shares was effected in favour of the defendant on 24.4.1999. Ex.A-7 is stated to be notice issued by defendant informing the plaintiff about the proposed sale of the shares. A perusal of Ex.A-7 shows that what all stated therein is if the plaintiff fails to pay the amount of Rs.19,403/- the bank will be compelled to dematerialize the securities in case of necessity. It is nowhere stated in Ex.A-7 as to which of the shares pledged by the plaintiff would be put to sale and on what date and as to what was the market value of those shares at that time. It is nowhere stated in Ex.A-7 as to which of the shares pledged by the plaintiff would be put to sale and on what date and as to what was the market value of those shares at that time. Admittedly, the plaintiff has pledged 100 shares each of 14 companies and 200 shares each of two companies, which are listed in the annexure to the plaint schedule. The plaintiff was never put on notice by the defendant as to which company's shares they intended to sell and on what date and at what rate. The contents of Ex.A-7 are thoroughly vague and inadequate and can never be treated as sufficient notice to the plaintiff that the shares pledged by him were going to be sold. It is also not tated in Ex.A- 7 that the plaintiffs would be dematerializing the shares and appropriating the sale proceeds and adjusting the same towards the loan account. Section 176 of the Contract Act reads as follows: 176. Pawnee's right where pawnor makes default.- If the pawnor makes default in payment of the debt, or performance, at the stipulated time of the promise, in respect of which the goods were pledged, the pawnee may bring a suit against the pawnor upon the debt or promise, and retain the goods pledged as a collateral security; or he may sell the thing pledged on giving the pawnor reasonable notice of the sale. If the proceeds of such sale are less than the amount due in respect of the debt or promise, the pawnor is still liable to pay the balance. If the proceeds of the sale are greater than the amount so due, the pawnee shall pay over the surplus to the pawnor. 15. In Prabhat Bank v. Babu Ram (AIR 1966 ALLAHABAD 134), it was held that: "Notice of the character contemplated by Section 176 cannot be implied. Such notice must be clear and specific in its language and must indicate the intention of the pawnee to dispose of the security." It was further held that "What Section 176 contemplates is not merely a notice but a reasonable notice, of intended sale of the security by the creditor within a certain date so as to afford an opportunity to the debtor to pay up the amount within the time mentioned in the notice". 16. 16. In Narasayyamma v. Andhra Bank ( AIR 1960 AP 272 ), a Division Bench of this Court held: "Before exercising the power of sale the pawnee should give to the pledger reasonable notice of the sale. In order that the provision should not be made nugatory, the proper interpretation to put on S.176 is to hold notwithstanding any contract to the contrary notice has to be given. At the time of entering into a contract of pledge the pawnor cannot agree to waive notice as it would be inconsistent with provisions of Section 176". 17. In the present case, the notice Ex.A-7 cannot by any means be construed to be a notice contemplated under Section 176 of the Contract Act. Further, Ex.A- 7 does not stipulate any period within which the alleged balance amount of Rs.19,403/- was to be paid. Ex.A-7 letter was addressed on 3.3.1999 by the defendant. It is not known when it was received by the plaintiff. The shares were dematerialized on 11.3.1999 as stated in the written statement. Thus, hardly, a week after issuance of Ex.A-7 letter, the shares were dematerialized by the defendant bank as per their choice without affording any reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff to respond to the letter Ex.A-7 and without even verifying whether Ex.A-7 letter was received by him or not. The absence of any period within which the liability is to be cleared or the date on which the shares will be put to sale in Ex.A-7 coupled with the fact that the shares were sold very shortly after issuance of Ex.A-7 letter without waiting for response of the plaintiff and appropriating the sale proceeds towards the balance amount allegedly due exposes the lack of bona fides on the part of the defendant Bank. Even after purchase of the shares to themselves on 11.3.1999, the defendant has not informed the plaintiff about the same. The alleged transfer of the shares on 24.4.1999 was also not intimated by the defendant to the plaintiff. The suit was filed on 21.4.1999, about 40 days after the sale of the shares. There was absolutely no intimation from the defendant to the plaintiff during the period about the sale of the shares and purchase of the same by the defendant themselves. The suit was filed on 21.4.1999, about 40 days after the sale of the shares. There was absolutely no intimation from the defendant to the plaintiff during the period about the sale of the shares and purchase of the same by the defendant themselves. Even in the letter Ex.A-14 addressed by the defendant to the plaintiff on 20.3.1999, the defendants have not indicated that the shares were already sold on 11.3.1999. Ex.A-14 refers to the reply of the plaintiffs dated 19.3.1999 to the defendant's letter Ex.A-7 dated 3.3.1999. In their further reply, Ex.A-14, the defendant once again demanded the plaintiff to pay dues and take back the shares without mentioning that some of the shares were already sold on 11.3.1999. The conduct of the defendant in not informing the plaintiff even after sale of shares and still asking him to pay the alleged balance amount of Rs.19,403/- even 10 days after the purchase of the shares by themselves is appalling, to say the least. 18. The plaintiff got issued legal notice Ex.A-5 dated 8.4.1999 through his advocate calling upon the defendant to realize the securities within a week as the plaintiff does not know whether any further amount is due to the bank. In Ex.A-5, it is further stated that any attempt made by the defendant to realize the shares of the plaintiff would amount to misappropriation of the securities and the plaintiff would be constrained to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for the same. The defendants gave a reply Ex.A-10 dated 15.4.1999. Even in the said reply, the defendant has not stated that they have already sold the shares and realized the sale proceeds and adjusted part of the same towards the alleged outstanding liability of Rs.19,403/-. On the other hand, in Ex.A- 10, which was issued one month after the sale of the shares, the defendant merely put the plaintiff on notice that they are entitled to retain the custody of the securities and put them to sale in the event of plaintiff failing to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.19,984/- as on 31.3.1999 within seven days from the receipt of the said notice. In Ex.A-10, the defendants have further called upon the plaintiff to pay dues and take back the securities and in the event of the plaintiff to repay the dues, the defendant would be constrained to take appropriate legal proceedings for recovery of the outstanding amount due. The defendants have not made even a whisper in Ex.A-11 that the shares were already put to sale and were purchased by them on 11.3.1999. Subsequently, on 21.9.1999, six months after the sale of the shares, the defendants intimated the same to the plaintiff. It is therefore clear from the above that the plaintiff was totally kept in dark about the proposed sale of the shares by the defendant and also the factum of the defendant themselves purchasing them and appropriating the same towards the alleged outstanding dues. Even in the reply notice got issued through advocate under Ex.A-10, they have not disclosed the factum of sale and purchase of the shares and called upon the plaintiff to pay the dues and take back the shares within seven days. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit on 21.4.1999 by which date also, there was no intimation about the sale of the shares. According to the defendants, the account was closed on 21.4.1999 after transfer of the shares was effected in their favour. DW-1 admitted that he has not filed any document to show that transfer of shares was effected on 24.4.1999. He could not say whether 23.4.1999 being Saturday, no transfer of shares could be effected as it is a holiday for stock exchange. 19. There is nothing on record to show that transfer of shares was effected on 24.4.1999. Even assuming it to be true, the shares were already sold on 11.3.1999 itself without any specific notice to the plaintiff under Section 176 of the Contract Act and without any intimation even subsequent to the sale. The alleged sale of the shares of the plaintiff by the defendant unilaterally without any notice as contemplated under Section 176 of the Contract Act is neither valid nor binding on the plaintiff. Consequently, the appropriation of part of the sale proceeds by the defendant towards the alleged outstanding dues is equally unsustainable. Admittedly, the defendant has not returned even the remaining share certificates to the plaintiff even after the alleged closure of the account on 24.4.1999. Consequently, the appropriation of part of the sale proceeds by the defendant towards the alleged outstanding dues is equally unsustainable. Admittedly, the defendant has not returned even the remaining share certificates to the plaintiff even after the alleged closure of the account on 24.4.1999. It was only after the plaintiff filed an application seeking return of the remaining shares and the trial Court passed necessary orders thereon, the defendant returned them to the plaintiff towards fag end of the trial. Such conduct on the part of the defendant in retaining the balance share certificates of 100 shares each of 15 companies even after closure of the account is unwarranted. In the circumstances, the alleged sale of the shares by the defendant and appropriation of part of the sale proceeds towards the alleged outstanding balance amount of Rs.19,403/- is neither valid or nor binding on the plaintiff. POINT NO.3: 20. The plaintiff seeks to recover a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for the shock and mental tension caused to him due to obstinate stand of the defendant. The plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint as to the basis on which the said claim was made. In the evidence, PW-1 however stated that he sustained damages because of illegal detention of his share certificates by the defendant. The reason put forward by PW-1 in his evidence for claiming damages is different from the one pleaded in the plaint. In the cross examination, PW-1 stated that he claimed damages of Rs.1,00,000/- not only for the sale of shares but also for holding them unauthorized even after discharge of the debt. PW-1 did not however adduce any evidence to show the value of the shares on the relevant dates and whether they were appreciating or depreciating and the loss sustained by him on account of retention of the shares of different companies by the defendant. In the absence of any such evidence, the claim of the plaintiff for damages remains totally unsubstantiated. The trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff in that regard. 21. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the plaintiff is entitled to claim the amount of Rs.19,403/- as the plaintiff has discharged the entire debt due as on 31.3.1998. The trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff in that regard. 21. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the plaintiff is entitled to claim the amount of Rs.19,403/- as the plaintiff has discharged the entire debt due as on 31.3.1998. As the defendant has already released and returned the shares to the plaintiff the direction prayed in that regard is not required to be considered any more. The plaintiff is however held not entitled for damages claimed in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the defendant. The judgment and decree dated 9.6.2003 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.207 of 1999 is modified accordingly. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part setting aside the judgment and decree dated 9.6.2003 and consequently decreeing the suit to the extent stated above, with proportionate costs throughout.