Karnataka High Court

Ratnamma Gadad W/O Late Veeranna Gadad vs The State Bank Of Hyderabad on 29 October, 2024

                                                     -1-
                                                                NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803
                                                                RSA No. 5810 of 2012




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                          DHARWAD BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                                  BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA


                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5810 OF 2012 (RES)
                        BETWEEN:

                        1.   SMT. RATNAMMA GADAD
                             W/O. LATE VEERANNA GADAD,
                             AGE: MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND
                             AGRICULTURE, R/O. KINNAL,
                             TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

                        2.   CHANDRASHEKHAR GADAD
                             S/O. LATE VEERANNA GADAD,
                             AGE: MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                             R/O. KINNAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.

                        3.   PRASANNA GADAD
                             S/O. LATE VEERANNA GADAD,
                             AGE: MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
           Digitally
           signed by
                             R/O. KINNAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
           VISHAL
VISHAL     NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA   PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL   Date:
           2024.11.05   4.   SMT. GEETA GADAD
           11:54:12
           +0530             D/O. LATE VEERANNA GADAD,
                             AGE: MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                             R/O. KINNAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.

                        5.   PAVITRA GADAD
                             D/O. LATE VEERANNA GADAD,
                             AGE: MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                             R/O. KINNAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.

                        6.   VANITA GADAD
                             D/O. LATE VEERANNA GADAD,
                             AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                             R/O. KINNAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
                                                                         ... APPELLANTS
                        (BY SRI. SURESH P HUDEDAGADDI, ADVOCATE)
                              -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803
                                        RSA No. 5810 of 2012




AND:

1.   THE STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD,
     BRANCH AT KINNAL,
     REPTD., BY ITS MANAGER,
     SRI. H T VENKATACHALA,
     R/O. KINNAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.

2.   SMT. SUMANGALA W/O. N B KATTIKAI,
     AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O. BELUR, TQ. BADAMI,
     DIST. BAGALKOT-587 201.

3.   KUMARI JAYALAXMI D/O. N B KATTIKAI,
     AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O. BELUR, TQ. BADAMI,
     DIST. BAGALKOT-587 201.

4.   SHIVARAJ S/O. N B KATTIKAI,
     AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. BELUR, TQ. BADAMI,
     DIST. BAGALKOT-587 201.

5.   LINGARAJ S/O. N B KATTIKAI,
     AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O. BELUR, TQ. BADAMI,
     DIST. BAGALKOT-587 201.

6.   CHIDANAND S/O. N B KATTIKAI,
     AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O. BELUR, TQ. BADAMI,
     DIST. BAGALKOT-587 201.

                                              ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V A BYATNAL AND SRI. S V JOG, ADVOCATES FOR C/R1;
SRI. LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6)

      THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
29.02.2012 PASSED BY THE 2ND FAST TRACK COURT, KOPPAL, IN
R.A.NO.2/2008 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
22.11.2007 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM AT
KOPPAL IN O.S.NO.96/1999, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
                               -3-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803
                                        RSA No. 5810 of 2012




     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA


                     ORAL JUDGMENT

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are before this Court

in this regular second appeal, assailing the concurrent

findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, whereby,

the suit seeking recovery of money was decreed and held

defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 jointly and severally liable

and directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.7,81,487/- to

the plaintiff-Bank within 3 months with interest @6% p.a,

till realisation of entire decreetal amount.

2. Parties herein are referred to as per the rank

before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. Suit for recovery of sum of Rs.7,81,487/- with

future interest @ 18% p.a against defendant No.8 and the

other defendants i.e., legal representatives from the

estate of deceased Veeranna Gadad, which is in their

possession.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

4. Plaint averments:

That one late Smt. Annapoornawwa Kinnal was the

owner of the land bearing Sy.No.141 of Budashettanal

village in Koppal taluk, the said land was acquired by the

Land Acquisition Officer (Assistant Commissioner), Koppal,

for the purpose of construction of Budashettanal Tank, the

plaintiff had engaged the services of one Sri N.B. Kattikai,

advocate to conduct her land acquisition case.

5. The compensation of Rs.8,81,488.76/- was

determined in LAC No.26/1984 and the land acquisition

proceedings came to be disposed of and execution petition

was levied in case No.114/1987. On 15.10.1987,

defendant No.8-the advocate accompanied Annapurnawwa

for collecting the cheque and she received the cheque of

Rs.8,81,488.76/-, defendant No.8-the advocate presented

the cheque to the plaintiff's Bank on 27.10.1987 for

collection, the amount was released and credited to her

saving Bank Account No.P-12 on 27.10.1987. It is stated

that on suggestion of defendant No.8-advocate and first

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

defendant's husband late Veeranna Gadad to open a new

account in the name of "Annapoornamma" in view of the

fact that, she has signed as Annapoornamma though her

name was mentioned as "Annapoornawwa" in the old

account and also in the cheque for Rs.8,81,488.76/- and

as such Annapoornawwa opened new account bearing

No.P-1512 on 27.10.1987 in spite there being already an

account No.P-12 in the plaintiff-Bank and thereafter a new

passbook relating to account No.P-1512 was prepared with

an opening deposit of Rs.5/- and a sum of Rs.1,01,001/-

was transferred to the new account from out of old

account No.P-12 and the balance amount was in deposit in

her old account.

6. Annapoornawwa received the new passbook

relating to account No.P-1512 and defendant No.8-

advocate kept the passbook relating to the old account

No.P-12 with him. It is stated that Annapoornawwa

submitted a withdrawal slip duly signed by her relating to

the old account No.P-12 for a sum of Rs.7,80,487/- and

the said amount has been withdrawn by defendant No.8-

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

advocate. Defendant No.8-advocate obtained a Demand

Draft in favour of late Veeranna Gadad-husband of

defendant No.1 for Rs.6,80,487/- drawn on State Bank of

Hyderabad, Koppal Branch and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

was credited for the purpose of obtaining two special term

deposit receipts of Rs.50,000/- each, in the name of

defendant Nos.1 to 3. Further that the husband of

defendant No.1-Veeranna Gadad encashed the above said

amount through demand draft dated 27.10.1987 for

Rs.6,80,487/- from the plaintiff branch and two term

deposit of Rs.50,000/- each amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-

was encashed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 20.11.1987.

7. It is stated that, Annapoornawwa on coming to

know about the fraud played on her in regard to a sum of

Rs.7,80,487/-, she approached the plaintiff's Bank for

enquiry and she came to know that she was cheated and

filed a complaint before the Police. It was informed by the

plaintiff-Bank to Annapoornawwa that amount of

Rs.7,80,487/- was paid on the basis of the withdrawal slip

duly signed by Annapoornawwa and it was paid from her

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

savings Bank account. Further, Annapoornawwa filed writ

petition before this Court in WP No.26881/1991, the said

writ petition was allowed directing the plaintiff-Bank to re-

credit a sum of Rs.7,81,487/- to her account. However,

before the order in WP No.26881/1991, the said

Annapoornawwa expired and this Court directed that sum

of Rs.7,81,487/- to be paid to her legal representatives

and further direction was issued holding that the Bank is

at liberty to claim the said amount with interest from the

concerned persons who are involved in the withdrawal.

The cause of action for the plaintiff arose in light of the

order in WP No.26881/1991 to claim the said amount with

interest from the defendants jointly.

8. On notice, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7 appeared

and filed their written statement inter alia denied the

plaint averments. It is contended that the acquired land

stood ostensibly in the name of late Annapoornawwa infact

the land actually belong to the family of the defendants.

However, since the land was standing in her name all the

notifications pertaining to the acquisition were issued in

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

her name, however, after compensation was awarded on

advise of the elders and on humanity late Veeranna Gadad

agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,01,001/- and

Annapoornawwa after receipt of the said amount, has paid

a sum of Rs.6,80,487/- to Veeranna Gadad in the

presence of defendant No.8-advocate and other elders and

the matter was settled. It is further stated that the

plaintiff-Bank is not entitled to recover the amount against

these defendants as the sale was paid to the predecessors

in interest and sought for dismissal of the suit.

9. The trial Court based on the pleadings framed

the following issues:

"1) Whether the plaintiff bank proves that the 8th defendant withdrawn the amount and obtained the demand draft in favour of Veeranna Gadag the husband of defendant No.1 for Rs.6,80,487/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Koppal branch?

2) Whether the plaintiff bank further proves that as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the plaintiff bank paid Rs.7.81.487/- to the legal representatives of Annapurnamma?

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

3) Whether the plaintiff bank proves that it is entitled in law to claim the said amount with interest from the defendants jointly?

4) Whether the plaintiff bank proves that the late Veeranna Gadag and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.8 have made an illegal and wrongful gain by possessing the amount of Rs.7,81,487/- and they are liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff bank?

5) Whether the defendants prove that deceased Veeranna Gadag was the true owner of the land in Sy.No.141 which was purchased in the name of husband of deceased Annapurnamma who was the servant of the family of the defendants?

6) Whether the defendants further prove that after the withdrawal of the amount, on the advise of the elders in the village, the defendants have paid a sum of Rs.6,80,487/- to Veeranna Gadag in the presence of defendant No.1 and the said elders have settled the matter?

7) Whether the LRs of defendant No.8 prove that the plaintiff has cooked up a frivolous suit by suppressing the real facts against the defendants and same is liable to be dismissed?

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

8) Whether the LRs of defendant no.8 further prove that the plaintiff bank has erred in permitting the withdrawal slip to be used as cheque in the Bank, and the bank alone is to be blamed for the mistake?

9) Whether the LR's of defendant No.8 further prove that the plaintiff bank is alone responsible for bringing into existence of all the documents with respect to withdrawal of the money?

10) What order the parties are entitled?"

10. The trial Court on basis of the pleading, oral

and documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that:

i. The plaintiff-Bank proves that defendant No.8

withdraw the amount and obtained the demand

draft in favour of Veeranna Gadad and husband of

defendant No.1 for Rs.6,80,487/- drawn on State

Bank of Hyderabad, Koppal Branch.

ii. That the plaintiff bank has proved that the present

suit is filed in light of the directions issued by this

Court in WP No.26881/1991.

iii. That the plaintiff-Bank proved that late Veeranna

Gadad and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

No.8 have made illegal and unlawful gain by

possessing the amount of Rs.7,81,487/- and they

are liable to pay the amount of the plaintiff-Bank.

iv. That the defendants failed to prove that deceased

Veeranna Gadad was the true owner of the land in

Sy.No.141, which was purchased in the name of

husband of deceased Annapuranamma who was the

servant of the family of the defendants.

11. By the judgment and decree, the trial Court

decreed the suit directing defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7

jointly and severally liable to pay the claim amount of

Rs.7,81,487/- with interest @6 p.a till the date of

realisation. Aggrieved, the defendants/ appellants

preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court, the First

Appellate Court while re-appreciating and reconsidering

the entire oral and documentary evidence independently,

affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

Aggrieved, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are before this

Court in this regular second appeal.

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

12. Heard Sri Suresh P. Hudedagaddi, learned

counsel for the appellants and Sri Laxman T. Mantagani,

learned respondent Nos.2 to 6 and perused the material

on record.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

issue No.4 having been held in the affirmative holding that

the plaintiff-Bank has proved that Veeranna Gadad and

defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.8 have made an

illegal and wrongful gain by possessing the amount of

Rs.7,81,487/- and they are liable to pay the amount to

plaintiff-Bank was not justified in decreeing the suit

against defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 and that there

arises substantial question of law to be considered in the

present appeal.

14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents justifies the judgment passed by the Courts

below stating that the concurrent findings of facts

recorded by the Courts below does not warrant any

interference in this regular second appeal and drawing the

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

attention of this Court to the order in the WP

No.26881/1991 and submits that this Court has clearly

held that the bank was at liberty to recover the amount

unauthorizedly paid from the beneficiary's account or

persons responsible and the Courts below have rightly

arrived at a conclusion that defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to

7 are liable to pay the claim amount.

15. This Court has carefully considered the rival

contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties.

Undisputed fact is that Annapoornawwa was the

beneficiary of the compensation amount under the Land

Acquisition proceedings and an amount Rs.8,81,488.76/-

was awarded in LAC No.26/1984. It is also not in dispute

that a cheque amount of Rs.8,81,488.76/- was released

and credited to her savings bank account on 27.10.1987

as there was a discrepancy in the signature of

Annapoornawwa, she opened an new account bearing

account No.P-1512 on 27.10.1987, thereafter a new

passbook No.P-1512 was prepared and an amount of

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

Rs.1,01,001/- was credited to her new account and in the

old account No.P-12 the remaining amount was retained.

16. The material on record would indicate that an

amount of Rs.6,80,487/- was encashed by defendant No.1

on 27.10.1987 and Rs.1,00,000/- encashed by defendant

Nos.1 to 3 on 20.11.1987, the Annapoornawwa having

come to know about the fraud played upon her, she filed a

writ petition before this Court in WP No.26881/1991 and

this Court on 02.09.1997 at paragraph No.5 held as

under:

"5. The Petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 18-11-1994 contending that the Bank's claim that cash of Rs.7,80,487/- was paid to the bearer of withdrawal slip was not true; that the Vigilance Section of the Bank in its reply dated 23-1-1988 (Annexure-J) to petitioner's complaint, had stated that Kinnal Branch was not having adequate cash for paying the amount of the withdrawal slip and therefore the fourth respondent had taken a D.D. for Rs. 6,80,487/- and two Term Deposits for Rs.50,000/-. In view of this inconsistency in the stand of the Bank about manner of payment, this Court on 5-12- 1994 directed the Bank to state whether there was adequate cash in Branch on 27-10-1987 to pay

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

Rs.7,80,487/-. The Bank filed an affidavit on 19-12- 1994 admitting that there was no cash on 27-10- 1987 to pay Rs.7,80,487/-."

17. This Court held that the respondent No.4-N.B.

Kattikai has taken a demand draft of Rs.6,80,487/- and

two term deposit of Rs.50,000/- each and the bank had

filed an affidavit to the effect that as on date 27.10.1987,

there was no cash available in the plaintiff's bank to pay

Rs.7,80,487/- and hence the D.D and two term deposit

were taken by defendant No.4-advocate. It is relevant to

note that the amount of Rs.6,80,487/- was in the name of

husband of defendant No.1 and amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

was in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the same

was encashed by the husband of defendant No.1 and

defendant Nos.1 to 3. This Court in the said writ petition

passed the further order at paragraph Nos.22 and 23 as

under:

"22. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the Bank taking steps to recover the amount unuthorisedly paid from the beneficiary or persons responsible.

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15803

23. In the result, this petition is allowed and respondents 1 to 3 are directed to re-credit a sum or Rs.7,81,487/- to the petitioner's account. As it is stated that the account was closed subsequent to filing of the petition, the Bank shall pay the amount to petitioner's legal representatives within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. No costs."

Emphasis supplied.

18. In light of the liberty granted to the bank to

take steps to recover the amount paid unauthorizedly from

the beneficiary's account or person's responsible, the

present suit for recovery is filed by the bank against the

persons responsible and encashing the amount. The

Courts below considering the entire oral and documentary

evidence more particularly that the amount has been

encashed by husband of defendant No.1 and defendant

Nos.1 to 3, have illegally and wrongfully possessed an

amount of Rs.7,80,487/- arrived at a conclusion that

deceased Veeranna Gadad and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have