Disposed

Smt Vanajakshamma v. Sri Kunduvadada Bheemappa

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024RSA/1617/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants appealed against First Appellate Court's reversal of Trial Court's dismissal of a suit for recovery of Rs.80,000/- based on a promissory note executed by their deceased father/husband. The High Court upheld the finding on execution and passing of consideration but reduced interest to 6% per annum, with 10% if payment not made within three months.

What did the court decide?

Plaintiff entitled to Rs.80,000 with 6% interest from 02-08-2007; 10% interest if unpaid within three months; court fee refunded.

Smt Vanajakshamma Vs Sri Kunduvadada… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36444 RSA NO.1617 OF 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1617 OF 2023 (MON)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. VANAJAKSHAMMA W/O LATE B.G. MAHARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MUDAHADADI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 002.

¶9

SMT. MANJULA W/O PRABHAIAH MALAGI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O VADERA BASAPURA VILLAGE, MALEBENNUR HOBLI, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 530.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. SHEELA W/O JIGALI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 530.

¶12

SMT. SHANTHA D/O LATE B.G. MAHARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/O MUDAHADADI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 002.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:36444 RSA NO.1617 OF 2023

¶15

SMT. ROOPA D/O LATE B.G. MAHARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O MUDAHADADI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 002.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. CHAKRAVARTHY T.S., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI. KUNDUVADADA BHEEMAPPA S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KADAJJI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 002.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29^TH AUGUST, 2022 PASSED IN REGUALR APPEAL NO.48 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., DAVANAGERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23^RD OCTOBER, 2020 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.247 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:36444 RSA NO.1617 OF 2023

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by defendants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29^th August, 2022 passed in Regular Appeal No.48 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Davangere (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23^rd October, 2020 passed in Original Suit No.247 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Davangere (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

¶30

It is the case of plaintiff that, one B.G. Maharudrappa, who was the husband of the defendant No.1 and father of the defendants 2 to 5, had availed loan of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff by executing an on demand promissory note, agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month. It is stated in the plaint that the said B.G

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36444 RSA NO.1617 OF 2023

¶32

Maharudrappa did not repaid the loan amount despite several requests made by the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, the said B.G. Maharudrappa died leaving behind the defendants as legal heirs. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff caused legal notice on 27^th January, 2010 to the defendants, seeking to repay the loan availed by the said B.G. Maharudrappa and thereafter, filed Original Suit No.247 of 2010, seeking recovery of Rs.1,33,000/- together with future interest at 24% per annum on Rs.80,000/- from the date of the suit till realisation.

¶33

On service of notice, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement and took up a contention that the plaintiff had never given loan of Rs.80,000/- to deceased B.G. Maharudrappa and defendants have no acquaintance with the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendants that the defendant No.1 is intended to dispose certain properties for her legal necessities, however, her husband's brother Karibasappa and his sons are not allowing her to sell the properties and due to enmity of the said Karibasappa, the plaintiff has filed suit, seeking recovery of money from the defendants.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:36444 RSA NO.1617 OF 2023

¶36

On the basis of pleadings on record, the Trial Court framed issues for its consideration.

¶37

In order to prove their case, plaintiffs have examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got marked 15 documents as Exhibits P1 to P15. On the other hand, defendant No.1 herself was examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on their behalf.

¶38

The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by judgment and decree dated 23^rd October, 2020, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred Regular Appeal No.48 of 2020 before the First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by judgment an decree dated 29^th August, 2022, allowed the appeal, consequently, set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred this Regular Second Appeal.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:36444 RSA NO.1617 OF 2023

¶41

Heard Sri. Chakravarthy T.S., learned counsel appearing for appellants and Sri. R. Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶42

Sri. Chakravarthy T.S., learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that the First Appellate Court has not reappreciated the material on record in the right perspective. He further contended that, PW2 to PW4 are the interested witnesses and based on their deposition, the First Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the Trial Court. It is further argued by learned counsel appearing for appellants that the plaintiff was stranger to the defendants and as per Exhibit P1, Rs.80,000/- was given in cash and except the recitals in the pro-note, there is no corroboratory evidence to show that such transaction had taken place. Sri. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for appellants also contended that the interest awarded by the First Appellate Court is exorbitant and without any basis. Therefore, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶43

Per contra, Sri. R. Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:36444 RSA NO.1617 OF 2023

¶45

submitted that the plaintiff has examined scribe and witnesses to the promissory note (Exhibit P1) and therefore, as the plaintiff has proved that the said B.G. Maharudrappa had borrowed money as per Exhibit P1, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶46

In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is the case of the plaintiff that the husband of the defendant No.1 B.G. Maharudrappa had borrowed Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff as per Exhibit P1. Promissory note at Exhibit P1 was proved by examining the witnesses and the scribe. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Courts below that, except denying the execution of Exhibit P1, the defendants have not taken plea relating to the transaction between late B.G. Maharudrappa and the plaintiff. In view of the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, though the Trial Court has dismissed the suit, the First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the deposition of PW1 to PW4, arrived at a right conclusion with regard to the passing of consideration from the plaintiff to late B.G. Maharudrappa. Therefore, the said finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, interfering with the finding recorded by the

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36444 RSA NO.1617 OF 2023

¶48

Trial Court is just and proper as the Trial Court has not appreciated the material on record in the right perspective. Perusal of the Exhibit P1-Promissory note itself is self explanatory. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court with regard to payment of Rs.80,000/- by the plaintiff to late B.G. Maharudrappa cannot be interfered with.

¶49

However, insofar as the award of interest by the First Appellate Court is concerned, it is not in dispute that the transaction is of the year 2007 and the borrower-B.G. Maharudrappa died leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs and as such, taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is entitled for sum of Rs.80,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of execution of the promissory note i.e., on 02^nd August, 2007 till the date of payment.

¶50

It is made clear that the defendants are permitted to pay the aforementioned amount within three months from the date of receipt of this order as observed above. In the event, if the defendants failed to pay Rs.80,000/- with interest at the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:36444 RSA NO.1617 OF 2023

¶53

rate of 6% from the date of execution of promissory note dated 02^nd August, 2007 within three months, the defendants are liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum to the plaintiff/respondent from the date of completion of three months till the realisation. It is also made clear that the plaintiff is entitled for Court fee paid before the Courts below. With this observation, Regular Second Appeal stands disposed of.

¶54

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶55

ARK

Smt Vanajakshamma v. Sri Kunduvadada Bheemappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vanajakshamma v. Sri Kunduvadada Bheemappa

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

Khatijabi Vs M L Basavaraj

Sri Kariyappa Chikkaiadanna Vs Sri Jagadish

Smt H v Saroja Bai Vs B S Chandrashekhara Rao

Smt. Puttagangamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raghavendra Educational Vs Smt J Saraswathi

Smt Chikkatayamma Vs Smt Chikkamma