Karnataka High Court
T. Goolappa S/O T. Shivappa vs M/S Samala Mareppa And Sons on 22 November, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13715
RFA No. 100172 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100172/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI T. GOOLAPPA
S/O T. SHIVAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. LATE T. GOOLAPPA,
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: PALTHUR VILLAGE,
VIDAPANAKAL MANDAL,
ANANTHPUR DISTRICT (A.P)-515001.
SRI T. SIDDA BASAVANA GOUDA
S/O. LATE SRI T. GOOLAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
2. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE T. SIDDA-
BASAVANA GOUDA,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: H/W,
Digitally R/O: PALTHUR VILLAGE, VIDAPANAKAL MANDAL,
signed by ANANTHPUR DISTRICT (A.P)-515001.
SUJATA
SUBHASH
PAMMAR
3. SHIVARAJ S/O. LATE T. SIDDA BASAVANA GOUDA,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC:
R/O: PALTHUR VILLAGE,
VIDAPANAKAL MANDAL,
ANANTHPUR DISTRICT (A.P)-515001.
4. PRUTHVI S/O. LATE T. SIDDA BASAVANA GOUDA,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
R/O: PALTHUR VILLAGE,
VIDAPANAKAL MANDAL,
ANANTHPUR DISTRICT (A.P)-515001.
T. BASAVARAJ S/O. LATE SRI GOOLAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13715
RFA No. 100172 of 2016
5. SMT. GEETA W/O. LATE T. BASAVARAJ,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: H/W,
R/O: SHIVASHANTHI COTTON
GENNING FACTORY,
ANDRAL ROAD, BALLARI - 583101.
6. SRI T. PANDU S/O. LATE SRI GOOLAPPA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
R/O: CARD OF SHIVASHANTHI COTTON
GENNING FACTORY,
ANDRAL ROAD, BALLARI - 583101.
7. SRI T. VINAYAKA S/O. LATE SRI GOOLAPPA,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL. AND DEALER IN
PESTICIDES AND SEEDS,
R/O: PALTHUR VILLAGE, VIDAPANAKAL MANDAL,
ANANTHPUR DISTRICT (A.P)-515001.
8. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. LATE SRI DODDAPPA,
D/O. LATE SRI GOOLAPPA,
AGE:48 YEARS, OCC: H/W,
R/O: S.B. BASAVANA GOUDA COMPLEX,
NEAR KANEKALBUS STAND,
CAR STREET BALLARI - 583101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI,
ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A8)
AND:
M/S. SAMALA MAREPPA AND SONS
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN REPRESENTED BY
ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SAMALA
RAMACHANDRA REDDY S/O. SRI
SAMALA PARVATHAPPA, AGE:58 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS IN FERTILIZERS,
PESTICIDES AND SEEDS ETC.,
OPPOSITE RAYADURGA BUS STAND,
BENGALURU ROAD BALLARI - 583101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B. CHIDANAND, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.02.2016 PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM BALLARI IN
O.S.NO.257/2000 AND FURTHER DISMISS THE SUIT AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13715
RFA No. 100172 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed by the defendant against
decreeing the suit filed for recovery of money of
Rs.12,04,061-72.
2. For the purpose of easy reference, ranking of the
parties is referred as per their rankings before the trial
court.
3. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff is
a proprietary concern dealing in Pesticides, fertilizers and
seeds etc. and the defendant T.Goolappa was the
customer of the plaintiff firm who is also dealing in
pesticides, fertilizer and seeds. Therefore, defendant-
T.Goolappa was the customer of plaintiff firm used to
purchase materials from the plaintiff-firm and during these
transactions, it is stated that the defendant-T.Goolappa
owed a sum of Rs.12,04,061.72 as on 29.06.2000. But,
defendant has not repaid the amount. Therefore, the
plaintiff is constrained to file suit for recovery of money.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13715
4. During the pendency of the suit, the original
defendant T.Goolappa died and his wife and children have
come on record in the place of deceased defendant-
Goolappa. The appellants who are legal representatives of
the deceased Goolappa have filed written statement and
contested the case. On behalf of the defendants,
defendant No.1(d) is examined as DW-1. The defendants
have denied the claim of the plaintiff. The trial court has
decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff, but with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till
realization.
5. Being aggrieved by decreeing the suit, the
defendants have preferred the instant appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants-defendants
submitted that the defendants father T.Goolappa was not
customer and was not receiving the material on credit
basis and never transacted with the plaintiff-firm. But, trial
court without appreciating evidence on record has wrongly
decreed the suit. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13715
set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial
court.
7. The respondent-plaintiff justified the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
perusal of records, the following point arise for
consideration.
1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances
of the case, the judgment and decree of the trial
court decreeing the suit for recovery of money of Rs.
12,04,061.72 requires any interference by this
court?
9. The counsel for the appellants-defendants submitted
that the suit is barred by limitation. The cheque stated to
have been issued by the deceased -Goolappa was
presented to the bank and cheque bounce case is filed just
for the purpose of avoiding the limitation period. Further,
submitted that the deceased T.Goolappa has introduced
many people to the plaintiff-firm making them to purchase
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13715
materials from the plaintiff-firm and in turn those persons
have not paid the amount. Therefore, for recovery of the
due amount from those persons has filed the suit against
the deceased T.Goolappa. Hence, the suit is not
maintainable as against T.Goolappa. Therefore, submitted
that the findings and observations of trial court are
perverse in nature and thus, illegal. Therefore, prays to
allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree
of the trial Court.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent-plaintiff argued by taking the court to the
evidence on record that the defendant No.1(d) being DW-1
has admitted that his father T.Goolappa was having
regular transactions with the plaintiff-firm and also the
deceased has given cheques. It proves that the defendants
are in due of the amount. Further, submitted that the
defendants have paid part payment towards the due
amount and these evidence prove that there was regular
transactions between the plaintiff-firm and deceased
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13715
T.Goolappa and this was known by the defendants and
after the death of the deceased T. Goolappa, the
defendants have repaid the amount. Therefore, by
considering all these evidence on record, the trial Court
has decreed the suit which needs no interference.
Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. The proprietor of the firm is examined as PW.1. He
has reiterated the plaint averments in examination in
chief. Further more, the trial court has discussed on the
documentary evidences Ex.P2 to P.90. The plaintiff has
produced 70 chits which are affixed on the back side of
invoice and credit bills. Exs.95 to 97 are the cheques
which are issued by the deceased-defendant T.Goolappa.
The DW.1 had admitted the signatures on the cheques are
that of his father T.Goolappa. The DW.1 admitted in his
cross examination that his father T.Goolappa was the
regular customer of the plaintiff-firm. Further, this
documentary evidence prove that the defendants have
repaid certain amount on several dates and the same is in
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13715
detail extracted by the trial court in the judgment upon
perusing the documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff.
Further, the DW1 in his cross examination admitted that
his father used to purchase materials from the plaintiff-
concern on credit basis. The DW.1 admitted signatures on
the chits, receipts, bills and cheques and also writings
made by his father T.Goolappa. DW.1 has also admitted
that his father has received two cheques in favour of
plaintiff-firm. When all these evidences are considered on
both oral and documentary, the plaintiff has proved the
case that after deduction of the amount, repaid by the
defendants, still the defendants owes a sum of
Rs.12,04,061-72. Therefore, upon considering the entire
evidence on record, the plaintiff-firm has proved the case
and thus the trial court has decreed the suit regularly
which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the
appeal filed by the defendants is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, I answer the point for consideration in the
negative.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13715
12. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is dismissed.
ii)Judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.257/2000 dated 12.02.2016 by the
Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari is
confirmed.
iii) No order as to costs.
iv) Draw decree accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE
HMB
CT-ASC
