Karnataka High Court
Sri R Chandrappa vs Smt Suvarnamma on 18 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47465
RSA No. 1684 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1684 OF 2024 (MON)
BETWEEN:
SRI R CHANDRAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS A TEACHER
GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL
GOWDETI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH H V, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SMT. SUVARNAMMA
KARNATAKA W/O LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O DOMMATHAMARI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 101
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47465
RSA No. 1684 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2024
PASSED IN R.A.No.5022/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court seeking the relief of recovery of money is that on 09.02.2016, the defendant has availed the loan of Rs.5,50,000/- by executing an on demand -3- NC: 2025:KHC:47465 RSA No. 1684 of 2024 HC-KAR promissory note and agreed to repay the loan with interest at 2% per month but the defendant failed to repay the same as agreed. Hence, filed the suit. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is a money lender and doing the said business without valid license and the plaintiff fails to prove the endorsement dated 14.08.2016 and prays to dismiss the suit.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and Additional Issue and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, she herself examined as PW1(A) and her GPA holder has examined as PW1 and other witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P8. On the other hand, defendant examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D7. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly, the admission on the part of the DW1 with -4- NC: 2025:KHC:47465 RSA No. 1684 of 2024 HC-KAR respect to Ex.P8 wherein he categorically admitted issuance of the document of Ex.P8 as well as the legal notice issued to him and the same was served on him as per Ex.P6. The Trial Court considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that the defendant being a school teacher, once he admits the execution of document of Ex.P8, he cannot contend that documents are created. Hence, the Trial Court decreed the suit directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of transaction i.e., 09.02.2016 till realization.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5022/2023. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, framed the Points for consideration that whether the Trial Court is right in holding that the defendant received Rs.5,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.02.2016 and thereby the defendant is liable to repay -5- NC: 2025:KHC:47465 RSA No. 1684 of 2024 HC-KAR the said amount with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of promissory note till realization and whether the judgment of the Trial Court requires interference of the Court. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly, considering the material on record, in paragraph 15 taken note of Ex.P8 as well as Ex.P6 and contend that it is not the case of defendant that plaintiff obtained his signature on the blank paper and it is not the case of the defendant that there was no transaction between the plaintiff and defendant. Ex.P8 supports Ex.P2. No doubt, in the top of the said document, date and month is corrected but in the signature, date and month is correctly stated without any correction. If Ex.P2 is considered with Ex.P8 which shows that there was transaction between the defendant and the plaintiff. In paragraph 16 also, the First Appellate Court taken note of the fact that in earlier occasion, in R.A.No.5006/2020, this Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court with certain directions. After remand, the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:47465 RSA No. 1684 of 2024 HC-KAR plaintiff examined her GPA holder as PW1 and her evidence was considered by the Trial Court. In the case on hand, though the signature in Ex.P2 is not similar to Ex.P8 or Exs.D1 to D3, it is not possible to say that signature in Ex.P2 is not the signature of the defendant and execution of Ex.P2 is proved from the evidence of PW1 to PW3. It can be presumed that defendant intentionally put different signature while executing Ex.P2. Merely because same is not admitted by the defendant, it is not meant that it is not his signature. The First Appellate Court considering both the report and documentary evidence, particularly admitted document of Ex.P8 comes to the conclusion that Trial Court not committed any error and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this second appeal would vehemently contend that that the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5006/2020, while -7- NC: 2025:KHC:47465 RSA No. 1684 of 2024 HC-KAR remanding the matter, taken note of the evidence given by the SPA Holder and also made it clear in the order itself that Trial Court shall exclude the interest for the period from the date of examining the original SPA Holder till the date of examining the original plaintiff, in case, the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in the suit and held to be entitled for the recovery of suit claim with future interest only at the final disposal and not otherwise.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also on perusal of the material on record, no doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant brought to notice of this Court that already there was an order by the First Appellate Court that the Trial Court has not taken note of the observation that while remanding the matter, First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5006/2020, directed the Trial Court with a direction to extend an opportunity to the plaintiff to enter into the witness box and to examine in support of her claim. Accordingly, the plaintiff is also examined as PW1. But the observation of -8- NC: 2025:KHC:47465 RSA No. 1684 of 2024 HC-KAR the First Appellate Court was not taken note of by the Trial Court while passing the order and from the date of transaction itself, the interest was awarded. When, the order passed in R.A.No.5006/2020 was not challenged by the plaintiff with regard to the observation made in the order that Trial Court shall exclude the interest for the period from the date of examining the original SPA holder till the date of examining the original plaintiff in case, the plaintiff ultimately succeeds. In the case on hand, GPA holder was examined on 01.07.2019 and also the plaintiff was examined on 09.11.2021. In view of not questioning the said order, the Trial Court ought not to have granted the interest from the date of transaction. Thus, the order passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5006/2020 has attained its finality. To that aspect, the appellant herein succeeds that not liable to pay interest from 01.07.2019 to 09.11.2021. No need to give any opportunity in view of already order has been passed and -9- NC: 2025:KHC:47465 RSA No. 1684 of 2024 HC-KAR the same has not been challenged and attained its finality. With this modification, this second appeal is disposed of.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN