Dismissed

Dr Veeranna Sajjan v. S K Basavaraj

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2021RSA/637/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a Regular Second Appeal filed by a defendant, dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. The court held that no substantial question of law arose, as the lower courts correctly found the defendant liable to pay the balance claim amount based on evidence of the dishonoured cheque and failed proofs of the plea of excess payment. Relief was denied.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr Veeranna Sajjan Vs S K Basavaraj — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶4

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.637 OF 2013

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Dr. Veeranna Sajjan S/o late Ajjappa Aged 65 years Managing Trustee AVS Shikshana Mahavidyalaya Gante Kanive Tarikere-577 228. Chikkamagalur District.

¶7

…Appellant

¶8

(by Sri Jagadeeshachari, Advocate) AND: S K Basavaraj S/o Kotrappa Aged about 39 years Proprietor of Nandi Book House Door No.66/1 BI Akkamahadevi Road Shivananda Plaza Davanagere-577 002.

¶9

…Respondent

¶10

(by Sri Gurudev Gachchinamath, Advocate)

¶11

This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 passed in Regular Appeal No.11 of 2010 on the file of the C/c I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, dismissing the appeal and confirming the

¶12

¶13

judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009 passed in O.S.No. 371 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) Davanagere.

¶14

This Appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This appeal is preferred by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 12^th December, 2012 passed in Regular Appeal No.11 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge at Davanagere, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21^st December, 2009 in Original Suit No.371 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶17

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status and ranking before the trial Court.

¶18

The facts in nutshell, for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal, are that the plaintiff is said to be running a book store in the name and style of “Nandi Book Shop” and the defendant purchased the books as per invoices bearing No.48 to 51 and 66 to 69 for various amounts on credit basis from the plaintiff and the defendant said to have purchased

¶19

¶20

books worth Rs.1,69,132/- for AVS Shikshana Mahavidyalaya, as its Managing Trustee. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has received Rs.1,20,000/- through Demand Draft as against the amount of Rs.1,69,132/-. However, the balance of Rs.49,132/- is yet to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is also stated in the plaint that after purchasing books worth Rs.1,69,132/-, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.154571 dated 10^th October, 2005 for Rs.1,69,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Tarikere Branch in favour of the plaintiff towards repayment of credit amount of Rs.1,69,132/-and the said cheque came to be dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Accordingly, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.49,132/- with interest at the rate of 2% per month and accordingly, the plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.62,500/- with interest.

¶21

After service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the defence of the defendant that he has paid Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.75,000/- to the plaintiff in the month of May, 2006 as against the

¶22

¶23

outstanding amount and thereafter, he paid Rs.35,000/- to the plaintiff and as such, it is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff himself is liable to pay Rs.35,000/- to the defendant and hence, defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. The trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, formulated following issues for its consideration:

¶24

Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have purchased the books from his shop under Invoice Nos. 67,68 and 69 worth of Rs.11,328?

¶25

Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant is due to pay a sum of Rs.49,132/with interest amount of Rs.12,774/- and also miscellaneous charge totally amounting to Rs.62,500/- as contended in the plaint?

¶26

Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as contended by the defendant?

¶27

Whether the plaintiff is entitle to the decree for the claim amount?

¶28

What order or decree?

¶29

Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and produced 18

¶30

documents and the same were marked as Exhibits P1 to P18.

¶31

¶32

The defendants got examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced four documents as per Exhibits D1 to D4. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 21^st December, 2009 decreed the suit and as such, directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.62,500/- along with interest at 2% per month from 01^st October, 2005 till the date of the filing of the suit and pendent lite interest from the date of the suit till the date of decree and future interest from the date of the decree till the actual realisation of the claim amount at the rate of 8% per annum. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, defendant preferred Regular Appeal No.11 of 2010 on the file of the First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after reappreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 21^st December, 2012 dismissed the appeal and as such, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, defendant has presented this second appeal.

¶33

¶34

I have heard Sri Jagadeeshachari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Gurudev Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to issue No.1 is correct, however, insofar as the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court with regard to issue No.2 is not correct, as the defendant is not liable to pay Rs.49,132/- along with interest to the plaintiff. He further contended that the appellant has paid Rs.75,000/- to the respondent pursuant to invoices raised to clear the outstanding amount, as reflected in the invoices, and the same was not taken into consideration by the courts below. He submits that the courts below have not properly appreciated the material on record. Hence, he prayed that the impugned judgments and decree require interference in this appeal.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that it is not in dispute that the defendant is liable to pay Rs,1,69,000/- to the plaintiff and thereafter the defendant has paid Rs.1,20,000/- through a demand draft and therefore, the balance of Rs.49,132/- is yet

¶37

¶38

to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff with interest and as such, he submitted that both the courts below, on appreciation of material on record, rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the same does not call for any interference.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by the courts below. Perusal of the finding recorded by the trial Court would clearly indicate that the defendant has purchased books worth Rs.1,69,132/- from the plaintiff for AVS Sikshana Mahavidyalaya and in this regard, the defendant has paid Rs.1,20,000/- through a demand draft and as such, balance of amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, is Rs.49,132/-. The defence taken by the appellant herein is that the defendant has paid excess amount of Rs.35,000/- to the plaintiff and the same has not been adjusted to the principle amount while calculating the dues. In this regard, I have carefully considered the document on record, which would clearly establish the fact the after purchasing the books worth Rs.1,69,132/- for AVS Shikshana Mahavidyalaya, the defendant has issued cheque bearing No.154571 dated 10^th

¶40

¶41

October, 2005 for Rs.1,69,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Tarikere and the same came to be dishonoured by the bank for want of sufficient funds in the account of the defendant. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant herein that he has given up his argument with regard to finding recorded by the trial Court on issue No.1, I have gone through the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to issues 2 to 4 and the same is just and proper, as the defendant failed to prove before the court below with regard to the payment of Rs.75,000/- was in connection with the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- paid by him to the plaintiff. Having regard to the finding recorded by the trial Court at paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment, I do not find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

¶42

I have also carefully considered the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, wherein the First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, has arrived at the conclusion at paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.49,132/- as against total outstanding of Rs.1,69,132/-.

¶43

¶44

The re-appreciation of facts made by the First Appellate Court is in accordance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The First Appellate Court has also re-appreciated the evidence of PW1 and as such, arrived at a conclusion that the finding recorded by the trial Court is just and proper. In that view of the matter, both the courts below have rightly held that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.49,132/- along with interest as directed in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In this regard, I do not find any perversity in the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Since the appellant has made out the case for formulation of any substantial question of law as required under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal is dismissed at the Admission stage itself.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Dr Veeranna Sajjan v. S K Basavaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr Veeranna Sajjan v. S K Basavaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pandikanda Bhagya Vs Sri. P. S. Palangappa

Byrachar S/O Late Kalachar Vs D B Mayachar S/O Byrachar

Sri Gangarudraiah Vs Smt Mangalamma

Javaregowda Vs Manjegowda

K R Basavarajappa Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Smt S Yashodamma Vs Rangegowda