Karnataka High Court
Sri. R. Shyamsunder Agiwal vs Sri. G.P. Venkatanaidu on 12 March, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
RFA No.100256/2017
C/W RFA No.100255/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
RFA NO.100256 OF 2017
C/W
RFA NO.100255 OF 2017
IN RFA NO.100256/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUNITA TAPADIA
W/O OM PRAKASH TAPADIA,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
C/O. SRI. R.SHYAMSUNDER AGIWAL,
RAMESWARINAGAR, BALLARI.
2. SRI. R. SHYAMSUNDER AGIWAL
S/O RAM PRASAD,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
RAMESWARINAGAR, BALLARI..
Digitally signed
... APPELLANTS
by YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
BENCH
Date: 2026.03.13
11:27:34 +0530
S.K. NADAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. G.P. LAKSHMI NARASAMMA
W/O G.P. VENKAT NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O. NEAR SUDHA CROSS,
INFANTRY ROAD, BALLARI.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
1(A) SRI. G.P. VENKATA NAIDU
-2-
RFA No.100256/2017
C/W RFA No.100255/2017
S/O. LATE PEDDAPPAIAH
R/O. FLAT NO.401, 4TH FLOOR,
ARYAKRISHNA APARTMENT, CANARA BANK,
LAYOUT, KOTHIHOSAHALLI,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU.
1(B) JAYAPRAKASH S/O. G.P. VENKATA NAIDU
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. AGRIUCTURE,
R/O. 158F, HOSPETE ROAD, BALLARI-04.
1(C) SMT. KAMMAGAYANI RAJASEKHAR
D/O. G.P. VENKATA NAIDU,
AGE: YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
4TH FLOOR, ARYAKRISHNA, KOTHIHOSALLI,
VIDYARAYANAPURA POST, BENGALURU.
1(D) SMT. SURAPANENI SARITHA
REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY SMT. G.P. LAKSHMI NARASAMMA,
W/O. G.P. VENKAT NAIDU,
AGE 70 YEARS,
R/O. NEAR SUDHA CROSS,
INFANTRY ROAD, BALLARI.
2. SMT. SURAPANENI SARITHA
REPRESENTED BY HER
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
SMT. G.P. LAKSHMI NARASAMMA
W/O G.P. VENKAT NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING NEAR SUDHA CROSS,
INFANTRY ROAD, BALLARI-583101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRANATH
K., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO (C) (NOC);
SRI. M.A. RAJENDRA AND SRI. ASHVIN B.G., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W. ORDER XLI RULE 1
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.04.2017 IN O.S.NO.189/2013 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BALLARI.
-3-
RFA No.100256/2017
C/W RFA No.100255/2017
IN RFA NO.100255/2017
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. R. SHYAMSUNDER AGIWAL
S/O. RAM PRASAD,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
RAMESWARI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101.
2. SMT. SUNITA TAPADIA
W/O. OM PRAKASH TAPADIA,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
C/O. SRI. R. SHYAMSUNDER AGIWAL,
RAMESWARINAGAR, BALLARI-583101.
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
MAHESH KUMAR R. AIGWAL S/O. RAM PRASAD
AGE: 55 YEARS,
R/O. RAMESWARINAGAR, BALLARI-583101
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.K. NADAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. G.P. VENKATANAIDU
S/O G. PEEDDAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
RESIDING NEAR SUDHA CROSS,
INFANTRY ROAD, BALLARI-583101.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRANATH
K., ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W. ORDER XLI RULE 1
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.04.2017 IN O.S.NO.186/2013 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BALLARI.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE
SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
03.03.2026, THIS DAY, B. MURALIDHARA PAI J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-4-
RFA No.100256/2017
C/W RFA No.100255/2017
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
1. The defendants in O.S. Nos.186/2013 and 189/2013 have maintained these regular first appeals, challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2017 passed therein by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari (hereinafter referred as 'trial court'), praying to set aside the same, and consequently, to dismiss the suits.
2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are as under:
i) Sri G.P. Venkata Naidu maintained the suit in O.S. No.186/2013 for recovery of Rs.34,80,000/- from first defendant namely Sri R.Shyamsunder Agiwal together with court cost and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The case is that after availing loan of Rs.30,00,000/- by executing a pro-note dated 5.12.2012, first defendant did not repay any amount either towards principal or interest.
ii) Smt. Sunita Tapadia has been arraigned as second defendant in the suit. However, no relief was sought against her.
On the other hand, in Para 7 of the plaint, it is expressly stated that she is only made as proforma party.
-5-RFA No.100256/2017 C/W RFA No.100255/2017
iii) Similarly, Smt. G.P. Lakshmi Narasamma and Smt. Saritha Surapaneni, the wife and daughter of Sri G.P. Venkata Naidu, maintained the suit in O.S. No.189/2013 for recovery of Rs.26,20,000/- from first defendant i.e, Smt. Sunita Tapadia together with court cost and interest. The case is that after availing loan of Rs.20,00,000/- by way of cheques, first defendant did not repay the amount in spite of repeated request.
iv) Sri R. Shyamsundar Agiwal has been arraigned as second defendant in the suit. However, no relief was sought against him. In Para 7 of the plaint it is clarified that the second defendant was made as proforma party in effecting the attachment before the judgment of the plaint schedule property.
v) On service of the summons, the defendants appeared before the trial court in both suits through their counsel and contested the matter. In O.S. No.186/2013, Sri R. Shyamsundar Agiwal filed the written statement and same was adopted by Smt. Sunita Tapadia. In O.S. No.189/2013, Smt. Sunita Tapadia filed her written statement and same was adopted by Sri. R. Shyamsundar Agiwal.
-6-RFA No.100256/2017 C/W RFA No.100255/2017
vi) In both the suits, the defendants raised a common defense and specifically denied alleged loan transactions. According to them Sri G.P. Venkata Naidu had come forward to purchase a property situated in Cantonment, Bellari and paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as an advance amount in connection with the said transaction. They further stated that due to personal inconvenience, Sri G.P. Venkata Naidu could not arrange the balance amount and as such, the said transaction came to be cancelled. They also contended that they have repaid entire advance amount.
vii) Based on the pleadings of the parties and the documents available on record, the trial court framed the following issues:
In O.S. NO.186/2013
i. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1st defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- from him on 05.12.2012 and executed an on demand promissory note in his favour and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 24% p.m.?
ii. Whether the defendant prove that the plaintiff has concocted the suit an demand -7- RFA No.100256/2017 C/W RFA No.100255/2017 promissory note as contended in para No.6 of the written statement?
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?
iv. What order or decree?In O.S. NO.189/2013
i. Whether the plaintiff proves that 1st defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each from the plaintiffs, totally Rs.20,00,000/- by way of cheques as averred in the plaint?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?
iii. What order or decree?
viii) In O.S. No.186/2013, Sri G.P. Venkata Naidu tendered his evidence as PW-1, examined one more witness and got marked documents at Exs. P1 to P15. On the other hand, the defendants adduced their evidence through Sri R. Shyamsundar Agiwal (DW-1), examined one more witness and got marked documents at Exs. D1 to D9.
ix) In O.S. No.189/2013, Smt. G.P. Lakshmi Narasamma deposed before the trial court as PW-1 and got marked -8- RFA No.100256/2017 C/W RFA No.100255/2017 documents at Exs. P1 to P8. On behalf of the defendants, GPA holder of Smt. Sunita Tapadia and Defendant No.2 i.e, Sri R. Shyamsundar Agiwal adduced the evidence as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively, examined one more witness and got marked documents at Exs. D.1 to D.10.
x) Afterwards, the trial court heard the arguments of both sides, considered the materials on record and decreed both the suits in part holding that the plaintiffs in O.S. Nos.186/2013 and O.S.No.189/2013 are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- respectively from the defendants together with court cost and interest thereon at the rates specified in the decree. Being aggrieved, the defendants have come up with these appeals.
3. Sri Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned Counsel for Defendants vehemently submitted that the trial court has committed serious error in decreeing the suits in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove the suit transactions. He submitted that the pro-note in question is a concocted document. He further submitted that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in O.S. No.186/2013 through PW.2 does not prove factum of advancing the money and he is an interested witness, working -9- RFA No.100256/2017 C/W RFA No.100255/2017 under the plaintiff. He also contended that if the evidence adduced in these cases is read in consonance with the pleadings, it goes contrary to what is averred in the plaint. In the above circumstances, he prayed to allow these appeals and set aside impugned judgment and decree, and consequently dismiss the suits.
4. Per contra, Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for Plaintiffs vigorously supported the findings recorded by the trial court and submitted that the defendants have not made out any ground to interfere with well reasoned judgment and decree of the trial court. He contended that the plaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence on record to support their case and proved their contentions on merits of the case.
5. Heard the submissions of both sides.
6. The only point that arises for our consideration is whether the trial court was justified in holding that the plaintiffs proved their case on the alleged suit transaction?"
7. Both these suits are for recovery of money. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.189/2013 namely Smt. G.P. Lakshmi Narasamma and Smt. Saritha Surapaneni are the wife and
- 10 -
RFA No.100256/2017C/W RFA No.100255/2017 daughter of Sri G.P. Venkata Naidu, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No.186/2013. The defendants, Smt. Sunita Tapadia and Sri R.Shyamsunder Agiwal. Along with their witness Sri Mahesh R. Agiwal are siblings.
8. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.189/2013 is as under:
"2. ........The first defendant as she was in the need of financial assistance has sought for financial assistance from both the plaintiff herein. Both the plaintiff had requested security for the purpose of loan facility and therefore the original title deeds were handed over to the husband of the first plaintiff.
3. The first plaintiff herein has issued a cheque in favour of first defendant for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- bearing cheque No.40730 of the plaintiff bank AXIS bank operated by the plaintiff at Bangalore. Similarly second plaintiff has also lent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the first defendant by issuing a cheque No.79061 of the AXIS Bank in favour of the first defendant. Both the cheques were realized by the first defendant on 30.12.2010. ..."
9. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.186/2013 is as under:
"4. The first defendant as he was in the need of money approached the plaintiff and sought for financial assistance from the plaintiff. The first defendant after
- 11 -RFA No.100256/2017 C/W RFA No.100255/2017
obtaining a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) in cash from the plaintiff executed an on demand pronote in favour of the plaintiff on 05.12.2012 agreeing to repay the interest at the rate of 24% per month in favour of the plaintiff for the amounts borrowed. The plaintiff herein is producing original pronote executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. At the time of borrowing this amount the first defendant has produced the original power of attorney executed by the second defendant who is owner of the plaint schedule property in favour of the first defendant and also the original title deed of the second defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property which she has purchased under the registered sale deed dated 14th November, 1994., both the original documents along with the encumbrance certificates were duly handed over by the first defendant to the plaintiff for the purpose of availing loan facility from the plaintiff."
10. The defendants have put forth common defense in these suits. In para 6 of their written statement filed in O.S.No.189/2013, it is contended as under:
"... It is submitted that the husband of the 1st plaintiff or the father of the 2nd plaintiff Sri. Venkatanaidu had a friendly relationship with the 2nd defendant as well as with Sri Mahesh Agiwal (GPA holder of 2nd defendant), Therefore, Sri Venkatanaidu came forward to purchase the property belonging to the 1st defendant in the 1st week of December, 2010 and agreed to pay the purchase value of Rs.1.81 crore. Therefore, he paid total amount of Rs.30 lakhs towards advance amount which include the above alleged bank
- 12 -RFA No.100256/2017 C/W RFA No.100255/2017
transfer from his wife and daughter respectively. This sale transaction was oral one because, my Sister and Brother agreed to execute the written sale agreement with a stipulated condition that if the 50% of the sale value is paid i.e., Rs.90.5 lakhs by Sri. Venkatanaidu, on that day the written sale agreement shall be executed in favour of either Sri. Venkatanaidu or the plaintiffs or his nominees. Subsequently, due to his personal personal inconvenience he could not arrange the remaining balance of sale amount and upon his request the oral sale transaction was cancelled the money advanced by him and through the plaintiffs were returned and repaid by 8.3.2011 which is acknowledged by the plaintiffs and their Manager of the M/s. Sai Automobiles, Bellary."
11. During her evidence, Plaintiff No.1 in O.S No.189/2013 reiterated the averments of the plaint and stated that as the 1st defendant was in need of financial assistance, she had sought loan from her and her daughter. She further stated that at that time she had requested for security, for which the original title deeds of the property standing in the name of 1st defendant were handed over to her husband. Then, they had lent money through two cheques for Rs.10,00,000/- each, which was encashed on 30.12.2010. She also stated that thereafter, she and her daughter were demanding the defendants to repay the borrowed amount along with agreed rate of interest but the
- 13 -
RFA No.100256/2017C/W RFA No.100255/2017 defendants delayed and postponed the repayment on one or the other pretext.
12. The materials on record belie this assertion. This is evident from Plaintiff No.1's categorical admissions during cross examination, which are extracted below:
"... I don't know both the defendants. Witness voluntarees that I know Mr.Mahesh. My daughter 2nd plaintiff also does not know both the defendants. I have been residing in Bengaluru since 10 years before that I was residing at Ballari. I saw the 2nd defendant. But, not the 1st defendant. I don't know the details of the loan transaction I have narrated in a para No.1 of the plaint. Witness voluntarees that but I was present in the house and saw the conversations between them.
... I am not remembering the exact the date of said conversation/transaction. I do not know the quantum of loan lent. I don't know how the original documents/title deeds of the cantonement property came to the hands of my husband. On 30.12.2010, I had handed over the cheque to the Mahesh.
Q: Then first defendant did not come and asked the loan?
A: No. It was Mr. Mahesh who approached me. ..."
Added to the above, PW-1 unequivocally admitted that as on 30.12.2010, Plaintiff No.2 was in America. These admissions establish that Defendant No.1 neither approached Plaintiff No.1
- 14 -
RFA No.100256/2017C/W RFA No.100255/2017 nor Plaintiff No.2 for financial assistance and that Plaintiff No.1 has no personal knowledge about the loan amount or how the original title deeds of the property at Cantonment, Ballari, came to the hands of her husband. In this suit, the plaintiffs have not examined any other witness in support of their case. Thereby, it is evident that the plaintiffs herein failed to discharge the initial burden of proving their case.
13. The Trial Court acknowledged this glaring discrepancy in paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment. Nevertheless, it erroneously presumed that Plaintiff No. 1's husband managed the entire loan transaction with Sri Mahesh R. Agiwal, and concluded that the plaintiffs discharged their burden of proof on a preponderance of probabilities. This finding is wholly unsupported by any pleading or evidence on record.
14. The suit in O.S. No.186/2013 is based on pronote. Pronotes, attract a statutory presumption of validity and consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). It is a rebuttable presumption. Once the plaintiff proves execution, pronote is presumed made or drawn for consideration. Then, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove it with cogent evidence, not mere denial. We need to
- 15 -
RFA No.100256/2017C/W RFA No.100255/2017 re-appreciate the materials on record, in the light of this well settled legal position of both question of fact and law, being the First Appellate Court.
15. The plaintiff herein namely Sri G.P. Venkata Naidu, in his deposition as PW-1, contended that Defendant No.1 - Sri R.Shyamsunder Agiwal had approached him seeking financial assistance to a tune of Rs.30,00,000/- and after receipt of the said amount in cash, executed an on demand pronote in his favour on 05.12.2012, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. In order to substantiate this contention, he produced a pronote at Ex.P1 and examined one more witness i.e, PW-2.
16. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that after receipt of Rs.30,00,000/- in cash, first defendant executed an on demand pronote in his favour on 5.12.2012, as per Ex.P1. However, during his cross examination, he stated that it was on 5.11.2012, the first defendant came to his residence at Sahakara Nagar, Bengaluru to receive the money as he was in urgent need of amount. Thus, the above statement of the plaintiff gives an impression that the payment of money and execution of pronote did not take place on the same day.
- 16 -
RFA No.100256/2017C/W RFA No.100255/2017
17. The plaintiff has further stated that at the time of handing over the amount, the driver of the first defendant and PW-2 namely Sri Satish were present. Initially, during his cross examination PW-2 stated that the driver of the first defendant was outside the house. Later on, he stated that the car driver and the wife of the plaintiff were also present at the time of the transaction along with them. However, pronote marked at Ex.P1 bears the signature of PW-2 as its sole attesting witness. Thereby, the materials on record do not probabilise the presence of the car driver or the wife of the plaintiff as claimed by the plaintiff and PW-2.
18. PW-2, Sri Satish, testified in examination-in-chief that Defendant No.1 executed the pronote in his presence after receiving Rs.30,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff. However, during cross-examination, he expressed his ignorance about details of suit transaction as well as from where the plaintiff brought the money to handover it to the first defendant. These self-contradictory statements of PW-2 coupled with his employment under the plaintiff, shows that he is an interested witness, which render his testimony unreliable. The Trial Court
- 17 -
RFA No.100256/2017C/W RFA No.100255/2017 erred in relying on such inherently deficient evidence to invoke the statutory presumption against the first defendant.
19. At this stage, it requires to bestow our attention to one more specific contention of the plaintiffs. In both these suits, it is contended that the suit transactions were secured by deposit of title deeds. The plaintiffs have even failed to substantiate this contention. It is because as per the averments of the plaint the loan transactions pertaining to the suits in O.S. Nos.189/2013 and 186/2013 took place in the year 2010 and 2012 respectively. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S. No.189/2013 is that before lending the money, they had requested the first defendant - Smt. Sunita Tapadia to give security, pursuant to which the original title deeds were handed over to the husband, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No.186/2013. Whereas, the plaintiff in O.S. No.186/2013 has also claimed (in para 4 of the plaint) that at the time of borrowing the loan amount the first defendant had produced the original title deed of the second defendant, for the purpose of availing loan facility from him. If this version is believed, then it should be held that the plaintiff herein received the original title deeds only in the year 2012.
- 18 -
RFA No.100256/2017C/W RFA No.100255/2017
20. On the other hand, the defendants contended that they received Rs.30,00,000/- as an advance from Sri G.P. Venkata Naidu for a proposed sale transaction, which they fully repaid upon its cancellation. To substantiate this, they produced Ex.D1 in O.S. No.189/2023, a document purporting to be an acknowledgment/receipt from Smt. G.P. Lakshmi Narasamma confirming receipt of the entire Rs.30,00,000/- from them. This Court finds no valid basis to accept the contention of the defendants particularly in so far as alleged repayment of the amount concerned. Admittedly, the defendants received Rs.20,00,000/- via cheques from the plaintiffs in O.S. No.189/2013. Yet, it is contended that the defendants repaid entire amount of Rs.30,00,000/- in cash. Notably, Ex.D1 explicitly records payment of Rs.15,00,000/- only with an endorsement ratifying receipt of the total Rs.30,00,000/-. During their evidence, DW-2 and DW-3 have stated that Sri G.P. Venkata Naidu was present when Ex.D1 was obtained. However, the defendants offered no explanation for failing to obtain a separate acknowledgment/receipt from Sri G.P. Venkata Naidu himself despite the payment ostensibly refunding the advance received from him. The defendants offered no explanation for
- 19 -
RFA No.100256/2017C/W RFA No.100255/2017 failing to take back the original title deeds with Sri G.P. Venkata Naidu even after alleged repayment of entire advance amount.
21. It is true that the defendants admit receiving Rs.20,00,000/- through cheques issued by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.189/2013. However, this admission cannot sustain any presumption in the plaintiffs' favour. The record unequivocally shows that the defendants, Smt. Sunita Tapadia and Sri R. Shyamsunder Agiwal, never approached the plaintiffs for financial assistance. Further, the plaintiff in O.S. No.186/2013 failed to prove lending Rs.30,00,000/- to Sri R. Shyamsunder Agiwal, especially in cash. Consequently, the defendants' bare admission of receiving Rs.30,00,000/- from the plaintiffs, coupled with their unproven repayment claim, does not entitle the plaintiffs to the suit reliefs.
22. It is trite law that the plaintiff must prove his case independently and succeed on merits of the case rather than relying on the weakness of the defendant's case. As such, the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case and to establish his claim with sufficient proof. In the cases on hand, the pivotal issue is whether any loan transaction occurred between the plaintiffs and defendants, followed by the latter's
- 20 -
RFA No.100256/2017C/W RFA No.100255/2017 default in repayment. Upon re-appreciating the record, this Court conclusively holds that the plaintiffs failed to establish the alleged loan transactions. The defendants' admission of receiving Rs.20,00,000/- neither strengthen the plaintiffs' claim nor the defendants' inability to fully prove repayment, warrants a direction to make payment to the plaintiffs. For the foregoing reasons, the point for consideration is answered in the negative.
23. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Appeals are allowed with cost.
ii) The judgment and decree dated 17.04.2017 passed in O.S. Nos.186/2013 and 189/2013 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari is set aside and consequently the said suits are dismissed.
iii) The amount in deposit in both the appeals, if any, is ordered to be released to the appellants, on proper identification.
- 21 -
RFA No.100256/2017C/W RFA No.100255/2017
iv) Draw a decree accordingly and send back the record to concerned Trial Court, forthwith.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE RKM/YAN CT-CMU