First appeal against dismissal of a money recovery suit claiming a Rs.3,00,000 hand loan for the defendant's daughter's marriage. The High Court held the plaintiff failed to prove payment or source of funds and found no perversity in the trial court's judgment.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2017 (MON)
BETWEEN:
SRI K MURALI S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEAWRS OCCUPATION: AUDITOR O/O CDA (R&D), C.V. RAMANAGAR BANGALORE 560 093.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANJANEYA A B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: High Court of Karnataka
W/O LATE S.T. SURAPURKAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R1(a) TO R1(d) ARE RESIDING AT NO.205, DATTA COLONY, AKASHAVANI HADPSAR, SOLAPUR ROAD PUNE- 411028.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUSHEELKUMAR V HADLI.,ADVOCATE C/R1: SRI. CHETHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (a TO d) NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD 28.02.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.3848/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE IN CHARGE OF IX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.03.2010 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 07.04.2010. In total, the plaintiff has paid Rs.3,00,000/to defendant No.1. After receiving the said amount, defendant No.1 has paid interest for five months till September 2010. Thereafter, he became regular defaulter in payment of principal amount and interest and when plaintiff approached him, he promised that he is having land in Raichur and he will sell the same and give the amount. Since defendant No.1 failed to repay the amount in spite of several requests, the plaintiff has issued legal notice to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has given untenable reply and has not made any payment. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit before the Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru for recovery of money.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court
has framed the following issues:
Rs.2,00,000/- as hand loan to 1st defendant on 29.03.2010 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 07.04.2010 respectively?
2% per month from 01.10.2010 as claimed?
Rs.4,86,000/- with interest at the rate of 24%
per annum from the date of suit till the date of
realization?
not due any amount much less the suit claim to plaintiff?
documents. On appreciation of oral documentary evidence, the trial Court has answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and issue No.4 in the affirmative and accordingly dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court in this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, defendant No.1 died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
a) Firstly, plaintiff and defendant No.1 were good friends and they were colleagues working in CDA (R&D), C.V.Ramanagar, Bengaluru. Since defendant No.1 had fixed his daughter’s marriage and he had some financial problems, hence, he requested the plaintiff to lend Rs.3,00,000/- and agreed to repay the same with interest at 2% within three months. Accordingly, the plaintiff mobilized the said amount. Since there was a short fall of some amount, he borrowed the same from one Mr.Sethuraman, who is a common friend to both the
plaintiff and defendant No.1 and gave Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.03.2010 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 07.04.2010 and totally Rs.3,00,000/- has been paid to defendant No.1.
b) Secondly, the plaintiff has also produced Ex.P4certified copy of the plaint in S.C.No.577/2011 filed by defendant No.1 against the owner of the Choultry for return of amount on the ground that marriage of his daughter has been cancelled. This shows that defendant No.1 was badly in need of money.
c) Thirdly, since defendant No.1 is a close friend of plaintiff, plaintiff has not taken any document to prove the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- towards hand loan. Defendant No.1 after utilizing the said amount, now has denied the transaction taking benefit that the plaintiff has not taken any written document.
d) Fourthly, in the evidence of DW-1, he has admitted the relationship that plaintiff and defendant No.1 were friends and they were working in the same office and has also admitted that his daughter’s marriage was fixed and later it was cancelled. It is very clear that defendant No.1
was badly in need of money. He further contended that the trial Court without considering all these aspects of the matter has erred in dismissing the suit. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:
“Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is perverse, arbitrary and does it call for any interference of this Court?”
No.1 were close friends and were working in CDA (R&D), C.V.Ramanagar, Bengaluru. It is also not in dispute that defendant No.1 had arranged his daughter’s marriage. Due to unavoidable circumstance, it has been cancelled.
the same. To prove the case, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he has paid hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to defendant No.1. Even though in the evidence of defendant (DW-1), it has been culled out that one Mr.Sethuraman is a common friend of both plaintiff and defendant No.1 and that he was a witness for
the amount paid to defendant No.1, but the said Mr.Sethuraman has not been examined to prove the case. If it is the case of the plaintiff that he has borrowed part of the amount from Mr.Sethuraman to pay the same to defendant No.1, but no document has been produced to
show that the plaintiff has borrowed money from Mr.Sethuraman. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that he had his source of income of Rs.3,00,000/- or part of amount to be paid to defendant No.1. When the plaintiff has claimed that he has paid the amount to defendant No.1 for his need of money to perform his daughter’s marriage, but he has failed to prove that defendant No.1 was badly in need of money in the year 2010. Therefore, the trial Court after considering the evidence of parties
and material available on record, has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has paid hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to defendant No.1. There is no error committed by the Trial Court in answering issue No.1 in the negative.
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the well considered judgment passed by the Trial Court and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The point raised for consideration in this appeal is answered accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
HA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit for recovery of a Rs.3,00,000 hand loan was perverse and called for interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri K Murali
Sri S T Surapurakar (since dead, by his LRs: Vijayalakshmi @ Vijayamala, Megha S, Neha S, Ruthuraj S)
The Administrative Officer, O/o the Pay Accounts Office (GREF)
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
