The High Court dismissed a Second Appeal filed by borrowing defendants challenging an order confirming a loan transaction. The Bench held no substantial question of law arose and refused to interfere with the lower appellate court's judgment.
Second appeal dismissed; the judgment and decree in RA No.2573/2010 remains unaltered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
R.S.A.NO.2573/2010(MON)
BETWEEN
- 2 -
DIST : DAVANAGERE. …APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.G.SHANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SRI SULADARAHALLI KOTRAPPA, S/O LATE HIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O KONGANAHOSUR VILLAGE, POST : NANDIBEVOOR, TALUK : HARAPANAHALLI – 583 131 DIST : DAVANAGERE. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RUDRAPPA.P, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.85/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARAPANAHALLI, ALLOWING APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.45/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), HARAPPANAHALLI.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Defendants in OS.No.45/2004 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Harapanahalli, have come up in this second appeal impugning the divergent finding rendered in RA.No.85/2009 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Harapanahalli.
- 3 -
Suit in O.S.No.45/2004 is filed by the sole respondent herein seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.48,412/- along with interest at 24% p.a., from the date of suit till date of recovery of said amount. According to him, defendants in the suit, who are appellants herein are brothers; that they were in need of funds for construction of house and also for purchase of bullocks to help in their agricultural activity, hence, they approached the plaintiff and secured loan of Rs.23,000/- by executing a promissory note which is produced and marked as Ex.P1 in the trial court. In the said suit, it is also contended that the defendants after securing loan on 1.4.1999 made part payments of the loan amount on 2 occasions i.e., Rs.1000/- was returned on 26.3.2000 and Rs.1,500/- on 16.4.2001, which is towards principal amount and interest accrued till then. Barring these two payments, no
- 4 -
other payments are said to have been made. It is in this background that the suit was filed.
- 5 -
- 6 -
- 7 -
appeal proceeded to frame two points for consideration. Out of that, the first point is whether the plaintiff establishes that the finding of the trial court to the effect that he has failed to prove due execution of the on demand promissory note dated 1.4.1999, is erroneous and the second one is, what order or decree that he is entitled to.
- 8 -
before trial court, it is only the 1st defendant who has stepped into the witness box, who denied all the averments made in the plaint and also made several allegations in his evidence which was not even the basis of his defence in the original suit. As stated earlier, while filing written statement the defence is nothing but one of denial without raising any specific defence. However, there is an attempt on the part of defendants to develop the denial which was made in the written statement by stating that there was a loan transaction earlier between the plaintiff and defendants and the documents which were executed at that time are utilized for the suit transaction, which according to them has not taken place. Though such a defence was tried to be established in the cross-examination of DW.1, no independent evidence is led on behalf of the defendants to establish the said aspect. Therefore, the lower appellate court by looking into the conduct of the parties, the manner in which
- 9 -
defence is raised and the manner in which evidence is led on their behalf, is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that there is an attempt on the part of defendants in making a bald denial without furnishing any particulars regarding the so-called alleged earlier loan transaction and also to establish that there was no loan transaction between the parties.
- 10 -
conclusion that the plaintiff has not established and proved the loan transaction with defendants, which appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out in this second appeal to interfere with the well reasoned divergent judgment rendered by the lower appellate court in RA.No.85/2009 in accepting the loan transaction between the plaintiff and defendants which also includes part payments which are made by them on two earlier occasions prior to filing of the suit, which are reflected at the back side of Ex.P1.
In that view of the matter, this second appeal does not merit consideration inasmuch as no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nd/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appellate Court erred in refusing to interfere with the divergent finding allowing the plaintiff to establish execution of an on demand promissory note.
Whether substantial question of law arises to permit interference with the Second Appellate Court's judgment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Harijana Bhakshi Sudugadeppa and Ors.
Sri Suladarahalli Kotruppa
S.N. Satyanarayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
