Smt. Hemavathi vs Sri. Ramanna
2024 Latest Caselaw 18896 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Hemavathi vs Sri. Ramanna on 29 July, 2024

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:29816
                                                            CRP No. 602 of 2018




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                             CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 602 OF 2018 (SC)
                      BETWEEN:

                      SMT. HEMAVATHI
                      W/O.LATE T.N. CHIKKAHANUMA,
                      AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
                      R/AT NO.869, 3RD CROSS,
                      S. RAMESH ROAD,
                      T. DASARAHALLI,
                      BENGALURU-560 057.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. PARAMASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      SRI. RAMANNA
                      S/O THIMMAIAH,
Digitally signed by   AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R HEMALATHA           R/AT NO.58, 9TH MAIN,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              LAXMI NARASHIMAIAH LAYOUT,
KARNATAKA
                      MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
                      BAGALGUNTE, BENGALURU-560 073.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

                            THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF SMALL CAUSES
                      COURT ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
                      11.09.2018 PASSED IN SC.NO.148/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
                      HON'BLE XI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXVI
                      ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, SCCH-12
                                   -2-
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:29816
                                                CRP No. 602 of 2018




BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF
MONEY.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR


                            ORAL ORDER

The defendant is before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated September 11, 2018, passed in SC No.148/2018 by the learned XI Additional Small Causes and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-12), Bengaluru. The decree directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit until realization.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit in OS No.148/2018 seeking the recovery of Rs.1,95,000/- with interest at 18% per annum, asserting that the defendant had approached the plaintiff for a hand loan of Rs.1,95,000/-. The defendant appeared in court, denied the averments made in the plaint, and contended that the loan amount of Rs.80,000/- which had been borrowed had already been repaid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked the documents as Exhibits P1 to P7. The defendant examined herself as DW1 and marked the document as Exhibit D1. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit, directing the defendant to pay Rs.1,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

NC: 2024:KHC:29816

3. The learned counsel for both parties have been heard, and the trial court records have been perused.

4. To substantiate that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,95,000/-, the plaintiff produced a cheque (Exhibit P1) issued by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant contended that in 2016, she availed a hand loan of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff, and at that time, she had given a cheque. The Trial Court noted that the defendant had not produced any receipt indicating that the cheque was issued to the plaintiff in 2016. Establishing an earlier loan transaction does not automatically confirm that the cheque was given as security for the hand loan of Rs.80,000/-. The plaintiff admitted receiving Rs.80,000/- from the defendant but contended that the defendant had availed a hand loan of Rs.1,95,000/- for constructing a building.

5. The defendant did not produce any document to substantiate that Exhibit P1 (the cheque) was issued in 2016 as security for the hand loan from the plaintiff. Therefore, the Trial Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, concluded that the defendant failed to repay the loan amount of Rs.1,95,000/- borrowed from the plaintiff in 2017. I do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. However, since the transaction between the parties is not commercial in nature, the Trial Court should have awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 18% per annum, as per section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Hence, the impugned judgment and

NC: 2024:KHC:29816

decree passed by the Trial Court requires modification.. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed in part.

ii) The impugned order dated 11.9.2018 in SC No.148/2018 passed by the learned XI Additional Small Causes and Additional Motor Claims Tribunal (SCCH-12), Bengaluru, is modified .

iii) The petitioner - defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

BKM