Dismissed

Ganesh S/O Shri Kishan v. S.K. Kanakrajan S/O Shri Santuyagu

Rajasthan HC15 Jul 2022CSA/54/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a civil second appeal where the appellant sought to challenge the decree in his money suit. The court held that concurrent findings of fact against the defendant, who admitted his signature on the promissory note, are not to be disturbed on appeal.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ganesh S/O Shri Kishan Vs S.K. Kanakrajan S/O… — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 54/2022

¶4

Ganesh S/o Shri Kishan, R/o House No. 239 D Railway Workshop Colony, Kota Junction, Kota-Rajasthan.

¶5

----Appellant-Defendant

¶6

Versus

¶7

S.k. Kanakrajan S/o Shri Santuyagu, R/o House No. 223 B, Railway Workshop Colony, Kota Junction, (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondent-Plaintiff

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ishwar Lal Jain For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶11

Judgment

¶12

15/07/2022

¶13

Appellant-defendant has preferred this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2021 in Civil Regular Appeal No.41/2012 by the Additional District Judge No.1, Kota (Raj.), dismissing appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2012 in Civil Suit No. 42/2006 by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.4, Kota (Raj.) whereby and whereunder the plaintiff’s money suit has been decreed and plaintiff has been held entitled to receive Rs.44,800/- from defendant further he has been held entitled to receive interest @ 6% on principle amount Rs.35,000/- from the date of filing the suit.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the impugned judgments.

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CSA-54/2022]

¶17

Facts of the case are that on 15.09.2002 defendant obtained a loan of Rs.35,000/- from plaintiff at the interest of 24%, which money was to be refunded within one year. In this regard defendant has also executed a promissory note, but he failed to refund the amount within one year. Therefore, legal notice through advocate dated 11.11.2003 was issued to defendant, asking to repay Rs.35,000/- plus interest Rs.9,800/- for 14 months, total amount Rs.44,800/- was to repay by defendant. Finally, the suit was filed for repaying Rs.44,800/- with further interest at the rate of 18% till payment. On service, the defendant denied to have taken any money from plaintiff and alleged that no promissory note was executed by defendant. He stated that plaintiff was running private society in which the defendant was member and when he demanded money from plaintiff he refused for which defendant filed criminal case against plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is using forged promissory note against the defendant.

¶18

Issues were struck and both parties led evidence oral and documentary. Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and exhibited promissory note (Ex.1). He also examined PW.2 Pyar Singh Meena, who filled up promissory note. The defendant examined himself as DW.1 and denied the fact of taking money, but he admitted his signatures on promissory note (Ex.1).

¶19

Having considered evidence of both parties, the trial court held that Rs.35,000/- were taken by defendant, as the defendant has not care to reply the notice sent by plaintiff and consequently issues were decided against defendant and decreed the suit as aforesaid vide judgment dated 18.04.2012, which judgment has

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CSA-54/2022]

¶22

been upheld by the appellate court vide judgment dated 11.11.2021. Thus there is concurrent finding against the defendant.

¶23

Learned counsel for the defendant has not been able to prove his case or to point out any perversity or make out any substantial question of law in respect of the judgment and decree passed by courts below. The conclusion of the courts below are based on findings of fact. It is a case of money decree, where the defendant has miserably failed to prove his case, as alleged, on the contrary he has admitted his signatures on promissory note. In such circumstances, concurrent findings are not to be interfered with by this Court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999)3 SCC 722] and catena of other judgments passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [(2001)9 SCC 521], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors., [(2019) 6 SCC 409], Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, [(1981)2 SCC 414], Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, [(2000)1 SCC 434] and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [(2019)10 SCC 595], C. Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy and ors. [(2020)4 SCC 659] has held that the concurrent findings of facts even if erroneous cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of the powers under Section 100 CPC. This proposition is well established. Findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence are the province of the trial court and the first appellate court.

¶24

(4 of 4)

¶25

[CSA-54/2022]

¶26

In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments, hence the second appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶27

All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶28

There is no order as to costs.

¶29

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶30

SACHIN /35

Ganesh S/O Shri Kishan v. S.K. Kanakrajan S/O Shri Santuyagu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh S/O Shri Kishan v. S.K. Kanakrajan S/O Shri Santuyagu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navratan Lal Sharma Vs Radha Mohan Sharma and Another

Phool Singh Vs Prakash Chand and Others

Syed Mohammad Afaq and Ors. Vs Ghosia Biwi and Ors.

Rameshwar Prasad Vijayvargaya Thr Lrs Vs Rajesh Kumar and Ors.

Puraram Vs Gopi Chand and Others

Suwa Lal S/O Shri Shankar Lal Rajora Vs Smt. Suja Devi W/O Late Govindram Ji Bairwa