Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manjunath S/O Yenkappa Kurubara vs Sri. Virupanna S/O Basanna Hali on 9 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:338
RSA No. 100325 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100325 OF 2023 (MON-)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O. YENKAPPA KURUBARA,
AGE. 33 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
/O. NARASAPUR - 583237
TQ. GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BALAGOUDA A. PATIL AND SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI. VIRUPANNA
S/O. BASANNA HALI,
AGE. 55 YEARS,
VN OCC. AGRICULTURE AND PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
BADIGER R/O. KESARAHATTI - 583227
TQ. GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
Digitally signed
by V N ...RESPONDENT
BADIGER (BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Date:
2025.01.10
16:43:38 +0530
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2023 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL,
SITTING AT GANGAVATHI IN R.A.NO.47/2022 DISMISSING THE
APPEAL CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GANGAVATHI IN
O.S.NO.115/2018 DATED 20.07.2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:338
RSA No. 100325 of 2023
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is preferred by the defendant
challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2003 in
R.A.No.47/2022 on the file of the I-Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Koppal (Sitting at Gangavati), (for short "the
First Appellate Court") confirming the judgment and decree
dated 20.07.2022 in O.S.No.115/2018 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi (for short "the Trial Court")
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has
approached the plaintiff for financial assistance to meet his
household expenses and for development of land and
accordingly, the plaintiff has paid ₹8,00,000/- as loan amount
to the defendant on 20.08.2017. Promissory note was also
executed by the parties stating about the payment of interest
@ 2% per month. It is further stated in the plaint that the
plaintiff has made a claim for repayment of the loan, however
NC: 2025:KHC-D:338
the defendant has failed to repay the loan amount and
accordingly, the plaintiff has issued notice to the defendant on
25.05.2018 calling upon the defendant to repay the loan
amount with accrued interest. In spite of the notice, the
defendant could not repay the loan amount nor replied to the
notice issued by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed
O.S.No.115/2018 seeking recovery of ₹10,58,000/- with
interest @ 2% per month from the date of the suit till its
realization.
3.1. On service of notice, the defendant entered
appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the
fact of receiving loan amount from the plaintiff. It is the specific
case of the defendant that he did not have any family necessity
to borrow such a huge amount of ₹8,00,000/- from the plaintiff
and accordingly, stated that the plaintiff has created a
promissory note and forged the signature of the defendant in
the said promissory note, and as such, sought for dismissal of
the suit.
3.2. The Trial Court, based on pleadings on record has
framed issued for consideration. In order to establish his case,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:338
the plaintiff has examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and
got marked 5 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The defendant has
examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and no documents
were marked on behalf of the defendant. The Trial Court, after
considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree
dated 20.07.2022 decreed the suit and directed the defendant
to pay principal loan amount of ₹8,00,000/- to the plaintiff with
interest @ 2% per month from the date of execution of the
promissory note till the date of suit and also interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of suit till its realization. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred
R.A.No.47/2022 before the First Appellate Court and same was
resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after
considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree
dated 31.01.2023 dismissed the appeal, consequently
confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.115/2018.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred
this appeal.
4. I have heard Sri. Balagouda A Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri. K.Anandkumar learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:338
5. Sri. Balagouda A Patil, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below have
committed an error in accepting the evidence of the plaintiff
only and decreed the suit based on Ex.P1, without considering
the fact that the plaintiff has admitted in evidence as to there
was no reason for the plaintiff to pay ₹8,00,000/- to the
defendant. It is also contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that the plaintiff ought to have
secured licence under the provisions of the Karnataka Money
Lenders Act, 1961 to lend money in favour of the defendant
and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court.
6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. K. Anandkumar,
appearing for the respondent/plaintiff justifies the impugned
judgment passed by both the Courts below.
7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is the case of the plaintiff
that the defendant has borrowed ₹8,00,000/- for his family
necessity and in this regard, executed the promissory note at
Ex.P1. It is also forthcoming from the findings recorded by the
Trial Court that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:338
Ex.P1 by adducing evidence of PW2 and PW3. That apart, the
plaintiff has caused notice dated 25.05.2018 (Ex.P2) calling
upon the defendant to repay the loan amount, however, the
said notice was not replied by the defendant. Taking into
consideration the finding recorded by the Trial Court, I am of
the view that the reason assigned by the Trial Court is just and
proper. Though the leaned counsel appearing for the appellant
drew the attention of this Court with regard to Karnataka
Money Lenders Act, 1961, however, the defendant has not
raised such a plea in the written statement and therefore, the
said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant cannot be accepted. It is also forthcoming from Ex.P1
that the appellant herein has put his signature as well as thumb
impression as per Ex.P1(c). In that view of the matter, the
finding recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper. The First
Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record as
required under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") confirmed the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court taking into consideration the
oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties. In that
view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The
NC: 2025:KHC-D:338
appellant herein has not made out a case for formulation of
substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of
CPC. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission
itself.
8. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
