Karnataka High Court
Basalingappa S/O Golappa Hadgal vs Madivalappa S/O Bhimraya Patil Hadgal on 5 August, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4439
RSA No. 200429 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200429 OF 2015 (MON)
BETWEEN:
BASALINGAPPA S/O GOLLAPPA HADGAL,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
GURUNIDHI HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
VILLAGE AT SRIRAMPUR TQ: HOSADURGA,
DIST: CHITRADURGA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MADIVALAPPA S/O BHIMRAYA PATIL HADGAL,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER,
GOVT. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA R/O: H.NO.4-601/54B, M.B. NAGAR,
DATTATRAYA 4TH CROSS, GULBARGA - 585 102.
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
...RESPONDENT
COURT OF (BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 28.09.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II-
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KALABURAGI IN
REGULAR APPEAL NO.11/2013 AND THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 07.12.2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V-ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AT GULBARGA IN O.S.NO.87/2009, AND
MATTER MAY KINDLY BE REMANDED FOR FRESH
CONSIDERATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4439
RSA No. 200429 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The regular second appeal is filed praying to set
aside the decree dated 28.09.2015 passed by the II-Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi (for short, 'the First
Appellant Court') in R.A.No.11/2013 and the judgment and
decree dated 07.12.2012 passed by the V-Addl. Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gulbarga (for short, the Trial Court') in
O.S.No.87/2009.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.87/2009
against the defendant for recovery of money of
Rs.50,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4439
HC-KAR
4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court
was that, plaintiff and defendant were cousins. The
defendant was in need of money and in order to help he
had issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/- to him and defendant
did not repay the same.
5. The defendant filed written statement and
contented that, the defendant purchased land bearing
Sy.No.52/2 for Rs.2,20,000/- from the brother of plaintiff
by name Channabasappa, but the sale deed was not
registered as the land was standing in the name of his
minor son. Therefore, the said Channabasappa was got
mutated the name of defendant and for which the plaintiff
got filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner against
the said mutation order effected in the name of defendant
and the said matter was pending before the Deputy
Commissioner-Bijapur and the matter was amicably
settled in compromise and the plaintiff agreed to repay the
said consideration amount on behalf of said
Channabasappa and issued cheque of Rs.50,000/- and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4439
HC-KAR
defendant agreed to receive remaining amount of
Rs.1,00,000/-. The cheque issued by the plaintiff in favour
of defendant was dishonoured.
6. The Trial Court on the basis of the said
pleadings, has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant
borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-?
2. Is the plaintiff entitled for the relief sought for
in the suit?
3. What order or decree?
7. The plaintiff in order to prove the said issues,
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.
The defendant has not chosen to cross-examine PW.1 and
also not lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court after
hearing the arguments, has answered issue No.1 in the
affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has
challenged the said judgment and decree in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4439
HC-KAR
R.A.No.11/2013 before the First Appellant Court. The First
Appellant Court after hearing counsels for both parties,
dismissed the appeal on merits by confirming the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
9. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant.
10. Learned counsel for appellant contended that
there was another suit filed by the respondent in
O.S.No.516/2008 seeking the relief of recovery of money
of Rs.50,000/- and the said suit came to be dismissed and
the appeal filed by the respondent challenging the same in
R.A.No.78/2015 came to be dismissed on merits on
13.03.2017. He further submits that, the said suit itself
indicate the defence of the defendant who is appellant
herein. He seeks time to produce the judgment and
decree passed in the suit and appeal.
11. The suit filed by the plaintiff against the
defendant is a simple suit for recovery of money of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4439
HC-KAR
Rs.50,000/- lent to the defendant. Ex.P1-Bank Account
Statement will establish that the plaintiff paid Rs.50,000/-
to the defendant by way of cheque and it has been
encashed by the defendant. The plaintiff, who has been
examined as PW.1 had stated his case in chief-
examination. PW.1 has not been cross-examined by the
defendant, who is the appellant herein. Even the
defendant has not lead any evidence to establish his
defence taken in the written statement.
12. The Trial Court placing reliance on the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Iswar Bhai C.
Patel @ Bachu Bhai Patel vs. Harihar Bera & another
in SAR Civil Page No.431, has held that, when the
defendant has failed to adduce evidence and has not
entered into the witness box, defence set up by him is
false. That the First Appellant Court has also considered
the evidence on record and has rightly re-appreciated the
evidence and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4439
HC-KAR
13. Even though this appeal is filed by the
defendant in the year 2015, no application is filed seeking
leading of additional evidence in the first appeal or in this
second appeal.
14. Considering the entire materials on record, no
substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
SDU
CT: VK
