Appellant challenged conviction of contract and interest award in dispute over insurance proceeds. Court found no coercion or lack of interest agreement, dismissing appeal and upholding lower courts' finding of liability.
Appeal dismissed; appeal against judgment and decree in R.A.No.5030/2018 and O.S.No.15/2012 rejected.
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 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
R.S.A.NO.741/2020 (MON)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHANTHILAL P., S/O LATE PUKHRAJ JAIN AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS PRESENTLY AT NO.1519 KRISHNAMURTHY LAYOUT NEAR RANGAPPA CIRCLE CHENNAGIRI ROAD, OLD TOWN BHADRAVATHI-577301 … APPELLANT
[BY SMT.S.AISHWARYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE]
AND:
ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDENTS OF BOOTHANAGUDI VILLAGE, OLD TOWN BHADRAVATHI TOWN-577 301. … RESPONDENTS
2
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.11.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.5030/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.08.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.15/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI.
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This matter is listed for admission today. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.5030/2018 dated 06.11.2019 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga sitting at Bhadravathi and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.15/2012 dated 21.08.2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Bhadravathi.
3
4
to believe that the account will be opened in the Indian Overseas Bank for the purpose of encashment of the cheques. As such, he obtained the signatures of the plaintiff No.1 on certain documents and brought her to the bank and told the plaintiff No.1 that the account has been opened in the bank and after some time, the cheque amount will be deposited in her account. Sometime later, when the plaintiff No.1 asked the defendant with respect to the documents pertaining to the bank account, defendant told her that he would keep the documents with himself and entire amount deposited in the account is kept in the name of plaintiff No.1 in the FD account and whenever plaintiffs are in need of money, he will withdraw the amount from the bank.
expenses of education of her children asked the defendant for money to be withdrawn from the bank. Then the defendant threatened the plaintiff No.1 that it is the money of his brother and he would pay the money when the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 attain the age of majority. Plaintiff No.1 suspected the behaviour of the defendant and when she asked the officers of
5
the bank, she came to know that the defendant had opened a joint account in the name of plaintiff No.1 and himself and without the knowledge of plaintiff No.1, he had withdrawn the entire amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 approached the elders of her community and informed them with respect to the transactions. In this regard, on 29.09.2006, a panchayath was convened and the defendant had agreed to pay entire insurance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and also to pay interest within September, 2007 to the plaintiff No.1. He had also agreed to pay Rs.7,000/- towards interest every month till completion of payment of the amount. In this regard, on 07.12.2006, the defendant executed a document in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to payment of the entire amount and he had also issued two cheques for Rs.4,00,000/and Rs.3,00,000/- pertaining to Canara Bank, Bhadravathi in favour of plaintiff No.1.
6
as agreed by him in the panchayath had not repaid Rs.7 lakhs within the agreed period of time and he has also failed to pay Rs.7,000/- per month towards interest. But, he had paid Rs.6,000/- in the form of cheque for a few months. The plaintiff thereafter approached the defendant and asked him to repay the money as agreed by him. But, the defendant threatened the plaintiffs that he had no money to pay to them and plaintiffs have to receive the money whenever he pays the money to them. Thereafter, the defendant had refused to pay the money to the plaintiffs.
defendant and the defendant admitted the relationship between the parties. He also admitted the murder of his brother and the coverage of insurance to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- in respect of
7
his brother. He also admitted the issuance of two cheques in the name of plaintiff No.1 and also opening of account in the Indian Overseas Bank for encashment of the said cheques and lodging of complaint by the plaintiff No.1 against him. He also admitted the fact that the criminal case registered against him has ended in conviction and he has preferred an appeal against the said judgment which is pending before the FTC Court, Bhadravathi. But, he contended that, after the death of his brother, with an intention to help the plaintiff No.1, he had approached the General Insurance Company and received two cheques for Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter, with the consent of plaintiff No.1, as per her request, a joint account and a locker were opened in the Indian Overseas Bank, Bhadravathi and jewels worth Rs.15 lakhs were deposited and Rs.5,000/- as fixed deposit was made in the bank to adjust the interest towards the charges of locker. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 had taken back the jewels kept in the locker for which defendant is the signatory. The defendant had opened another account at Karnataka Bank, Bhadravathi and the said amount was withdrawn through cheque. Apart from that, Rs.3 lakhs was deposited as fixed deposit and another Rs.1 lakh was deposited as fixed deposit
8
and remaining Rs.50,000/- was left in the S.B. account. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 used to draw the amount from S.B. account according to her convenience.
9
Secretary Department of Home Affairs and also to the DIG, Davanagere.
the appellant herein also filed Regular Appeal No.5030/2018. The First Appellate Court, after considering the grounds urged in the appeal, framed the point for consideration whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant has fraudulently withdrawn Rs.4,50,000/- and the defendant had agreed to pay Rs.7 lakhs with interest to the plaintiffs in the panchayath. The First
10
Appellate Court also raised point for consideration with regard to whether the defendant proves that plaintiff No.1 had withdrawn a sum of Rs.5,78,000/- and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.7 lakhs with interest from the defendant. On re-appreciation of material available on record, dismissed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree.
11
so also Ex.P2-cheques. On re-appreciation, comes to the conclusion that the defendant had admitted the signatures available in Exs.P1 and P2. However, modified the judgment of the Trial Court allowing the interest at 9% per annum on Rs.7 lakhs from the date of transaction till the date of the suit i.e., 01.12.2009 and allowed the interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit on the amount due as on the date of suit till the date of realization. It is further ordered that an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is to be deducted from the principal amount with timely interest due as on the date of the suit. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
12
the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are not based on the material available on record.
13
relationship between the parties. He also admitted the fact of giving an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- by the Insurance Company towards the death of the deceased i.e., the brother of the defendant and the husband of the plaintiff No.1. The very defence that the documents at Exs.P1 and P2 are obtained with the support of the police under coercion was considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
14
Trial Court and the same is also considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
the facts and circumstances, in paragraph Nos.27 to 30 in detail discussed with regard to the material available on record. However, the First Appellate Court allowed the interest of 9% on the principal amount on Rs.7 lakhs for the limited period and thereafter, reduced the interest to 6% till the date of realization.
15
defendant that Exs.P1 and P2 are obtained under coercion with the help of the Police cannot be accepted. The other contention that no contract about payment of interest in terms of Ex.P1 also cannot be accepted and both the Courts have taken note of the withdrawal of amount by defendant without her knowledge and allowed the interest since, the defendant also agreed to pay interest in the panchayath and given the cheques towards the interest. Hence, I do not find any ground to frame the substantial question of law to invoke Section 100 of C.P.C to admit the second appeal.
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ST
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the documents executed under pressure with police assistance were obtained with coercion.
Whether there is a contract regarding the payment of interest despite no explicit agreement in terms of Ex.P1.
Whether the judgment of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court amounts to perversity against available evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Shanthilal P.
Smt. Indira @ Indumathi
Rahul Jain
Rakesha Jain
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
