Respondent appealed against a lower court decree recovering loan dues. The High Court held the evidence regarding loan availing and credit confirmation was conclusive, dismissing the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decree for recovery of Rs. 3,41,918/- from the appellant and guarantor.
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 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
RFA NO.129 OF 2014 (MON)
BETWEEN :
MR. S.MADHUSUDHAN S/O MR. N. S. IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.101, KT 26 6TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003 … APPELLANT
(BY SRI KARAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
2
(BY SRI K.SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.09.2016, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5720/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 42ND ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2013 passed by 42nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit in O.S.No.5720/2010 filed by respondent no.1/plaintiff, defendant no.1 therein has preferred this appeal.
3
4
through his Counsel before the trial court and has contested the suit. The suit was dismissed at the initial stage itself as against defendant no.4 and defendant nos.2 and 3 were placed ex parte .
5
8. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in,
the trial court has answered the above issues in the
following manner:
Issue No.1:In the affirmative Issue No.2:In the affirmative Issue No.3:In the affirmative Issue No.4:Partly in the affirmative Issue No.5:As per final order.
Consequently, the trial court has passed the following order:
“Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs as follows:
The defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,41,918/-
6
(Rupees three lakh forty one thousand nine hundred and eighteen only) with future interest at the rate of 14% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from the date of suit till realisation.
Suit against defendant No.3 dismissed.
Suit against defendant No.4 is already dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.”
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.5720/2010, defendant no.1 therein has preferred this appeal.
that the documents produced as evidence by the plaintiff-Bank does not bear the signatures of the appellant/defendant no.1 but are forged and fabricated. It is further contended that a fraud is played upon the appellant/defendant no.1 by the officers of the plaintiffBank and also defendant nos.2 and 3. It is pointed out that in fact certain officers of the plaintiff-Bank including PW.2 were convicted by a Criminal Court for playing the fraud on several persons like that of the
7
appellant/defendant no.1 and the trial court has failed to take note of this particular fact and has rendered the judgment mechanically by relying upon the documents produced by the plaintiff. On these grounds, the appellant/defendant no.1 has prayed that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5720/2010 be set aside and the suit be dismissed.
8
conclusion that defendant no.1 borrowed a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- from the plaintiff-Bank.
9
between the plaintiff-Bank and defendant no.1. The plaintiff-Bank has also relied upon the notices issued by
it to defendant no.1 in respect of default.
appellant/defendant no.1 has not made any application before the trial court to have his signatures verified by
an expert to prove that he has not executed the loan
10
application, pronote and letters of revival. To bare eye the signatures do not appear to have been forged. On questioning, the counsel for the appellant/defendant no.1 submits that he has not initiated any criminal action against any employee of the plaintiff-Bank or defendant no.2 or any person involved with defendant no.3-company, whom he alleges to have colluded to defraud him. In this regard, the trial court in its judgment has observed that defendant no.1 has denied the execution of the documents but has not denied the signatures on them. It has rightly observed that nothing has been elicited by the appellant/defendant no.1 in the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2. As rightly observed by the trial court, mere conviction of PW.2 or any other employee of the plaintiff-Bank cannot result in defendant no.1 being absolved of his liability to the plaintiff-Bank. Mere conviction of PW.2 in another case does not render his evidence unbelievable in this case.
11
India, Malleswaram Branch, wherein the Assistant
General Manager has stated as follows:
“CONFIRMATION OF CREDIT VIDE 683141
DTD 11/10/2002
With reference to the above, we confirm having credited the proceeds to the A/c of Mr.S.Madhusudhan on 17/10/2002.
The relative statement of A/c is enclosed for your reference.”
of India shows that a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- being credited into the account of defendant no.1 on
17.10.2002. Defendant no.1 in his cross-examination has deposed as under:
“…………… I have got account in SBI, Malleswaram Branch. The statement of Account in SBI, Malleswaram Branch is produced in the cross examination and it is marked as Ex.P-15.
…………………”
12
From the above admission along with pleadings and the exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank goes to show that the appellant/defendant no.1 has availed a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- from the plaintiff-Bank.
13
Sd/JUDGE
hkh.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence on record regarding the availing of a loan by the appellant.
Whether the appellant failed to prove that the loan documents were forged or fabricated.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Madhusudhan
Canara Bank
A. Balakrishnan
Enclotech Ready Panels Ltd.
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
