Dismissed

Sri C Reddappa Reddy v. Sri a Prabhakar Shetty

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2024RFA/12/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular First Appeal challenging a decree for recovery of money. The appellant plaintiffs claimed they paid excess money by mistake, while respondents claimed it was for additional works. High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that respondents failed to prove the additional works and the excess payment was indeed by mistake.

What did the court decide?

First Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree dated 14.09.2018 in O.S.No.5031/2014 confirmed.

Sri C Reddappa Reddy Vs Sri a Prabhakar Shetty — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:24001 RFA No. 12 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2019 (MON)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. C.REDDAPPA REDDY, S/O. CHNADRASHEKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. N.VINAY KUMAR, S/O. N.NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. G.LAKSHMI SREEDEVI, W/O. G.SAILESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶13

SRI. SAIPRASAD REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶14

APPELLANT-1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER APPELLANT-4 SRI. SAIPRASAD REDDY.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:24001 RFA No. 12 of 2019

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT. NO.19 1^ST FLOOR, 'G' BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 080.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI.V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. A.PRABHAKARA SHETTY, S/O. SRI.B.ANANDA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26A, NEW NO.6/1, 8^TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, R.M.V.EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 080.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI.M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.5031/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:24001 RFA No. 12 of 2019

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is filed by appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2018 passed in O.S.No.5031/2014 by the Learned XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.31), (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court'), thereby, the suit filed for recovery of money is decreed.

¶29

The rank of the parties is stated as before the

¶30

trial Court for easy reference and convenience.

¶31

It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that there was a land agreement between the plaintiff and defendants and the appellants/defendants were allotted flat No.303 as developer's share, which is defendant's suit 'C' schedule property. Later on, the appellants/defendants offered the said flat for sale for a total sale consideration of Rs.32,50,000/and it is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.32,50,000/- and has also made excess payment of Rs.2,50,000/-, thereby, the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:24001 RFA No. 12 of 2019

¶34

plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to the appellants/defendants but the total sale consideration is Rs.32,50,000/and hence, the respondent/plaintiff requested the appellants/defendants for re-imbursement of the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which was paid in excess by mistake. The appellants/defendants have not repaid the said amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of the money.

¶35

It is the case of the appellants/defendants that defendant No.4 has filed a written statement and admitted all the transactions between plaintiff and defendants pleaded in the plaint, except the averment made that the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was excessively paid by mistake. It is the case of the appellants/defendants that the amount paid by the respondent/plaintiff of Rs.2,50,000/- is towards additional works carried out by the appellants/defendants. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff has not paid excess amount, which is the agreed fixed

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:24001 RFA No. 12 of 2019

¶38

amount. Hence, the appellants/defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

¶39

Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

¶40

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that while paying sale consideration to the defendants in respect of purchase of suit B & C schedule property, the plaintiff has paid an excess amount of Rs.2,50,000/- through cheque bearing no.306133 to the defendants by mistake?

¶41

2. Whether the defendant no.4 proves that the said excess amount of Rs.250,000/was paid voluntarily (by plaintiff) for carrying out additional amenities (work) required by him which was duly carried out by the defendants?

¶42

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,37,500/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till realization?

¶43

4. What order or decree?

¶44

The plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and

¶45

got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.7. On behalf of

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:24001 RFA No. 12 of 2019

¶48

the defendants, the defendant No.4 examined himself as

¶49

D.W.1, but has not marked any documentary evidence.

¶50

The trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the reason that, as per the agreement of sale and the Sale Deed taken place, the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.32,50,000/- and the respondent/plaintiff has paid Rs.32,50,000/- and excess of Rs.2,50,000/- thus, he has by oversight, paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-. Therefore, the trial Court based on the oral evidence and documentary evidence, found that the respondent/plaintiff had paid an excess amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- by mistake and, therefore, decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

¶51

Heard arguments and perused the records.

¶52

The points that would arise for my consideration

¶53

are as follows:

¶54

1)"Whether, based on the facts and circumstances inward in the case, the plaintiff proved that he has paid an additional amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:24001 RFA No. 12 of 2019

¶56

defendants due to inadvertently and thus is liable for a decree as against the defendants?".

¶57

2) "Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court require any interference by this Court?"

¶58

The appellants/defendants have not disputed the transactions taken place between the plaintiff and defendants and even as per the agreement of sale, the total sale consideration of the suit 'C' schedule property is Rs.32,50,000/-. The appellants/defendants have admitted that the respondent/plaintiff has paid Rs.35,00,000/-. Therefore, it was admitted that the respondent/plaintiff has paid an extra Rs.2,50,000/-, but, it is the defence of the appellants/defendants that the amount of payment of Rs.2,50,000/- is towards carrying out additional works in the flat. Therefore, it is the defence of the defendants that the plaintiff has not paid excess amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, but it is as per the agreement. The appellants/defendants have admitted the payment made by the plaintiff of Rs.32,50,000/- as it is the sale consideration amount and

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:24001 RFA No. 12 of 2019

¶61

as per the sale agreement itself, they also admitted the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- by the plaintiff, but the defence of the defendants have not been proved by any documentary evidence to prove that the appellants/defendants have carried out the additional work. Further, the trial Court has observed that during the course of cross examination of D.W.1, no such additional work has been carried out by the appellants/defendants and for such additional work, there was no contract between the plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, the defence taken by the defendants that the additional work

¶62

to the flat is worth Rs.5,00,000/but the respondent/plaintiff has paid only Rs.2,50,000/- and still the respondent/plaintiff is bound to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is not supported by evidence. If it is the defence of the defendants that they have done extra additional work worth Rs.5,00,000/- and the plaintiff has paid only Rs.2,50,000/then the appellants/ defendants would have issued demand notice to the respondent/plaintiff for the payment of the balance of

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:24001 RFA No. 12 of 2019

¶65

Rs.2,50,000/- but the appellants/defendants have not

¶66

issued any demand notice to the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the defence raised by the appellants/defendants in the written statement is not proved by the defendants, whereas the respondent/plaintiff has proved that he has paid extra amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, which is in excess of the stipulated amount as per Ex.P.1 agreement of sale. Therefore, the trial Court has answered the issue correctly and accordingly given a finding before passing the decree.

¶67

Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative . Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i. The appeal hereby is dismissed .

¶70

ii. The judgment and decree dated 14.09.2018 in O.S.No.5031/2014 passed by the Learned XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.31) is hereby confirmed.

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:24001 RFA No. 12 of 2019

¶72

10 -

¶73

iii. Draw decree accordingly.

¶74

iv. No order as to costs.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri C Reddappa Reddy v. Sri a Prabhakar Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C Reddappa Reddy v. Sri a Prabhakar Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh M Surana Vs Manjunath M a

Vimalakshi Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

S.P. Harish Kumar Vs Sri. M. Ponnuswamy

The Branch Manager Vs Muniraju @ Munirajappa

Sri Anthoniraj Vs Smt Varalakshmi

Sri Shivanna Vs Sri Thimmaiah