Karnataka High Court
Sri R Chandrappa vs Smt Suvarnamma on 18 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47465
RSA No. 1684 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1684 OF 2024 (MON)
BETWEEN:
SRI R CHANDRAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS A TEACHER
GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL
GOWDETI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH H V, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SMT. SUVARNAMMA
KARNATAKA W/O LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O DOMMATHAMARI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 101
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47465
RSA No. 1684 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2024
PASSED IN R.A.No.5022/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff
before the Trial Court seeking the relief of recovery of
money is that on 09.02.2016, the defendant has availed
the loan of Rs.5,50,000/- by executing an on demand
NC: 2025:KHC:47465
HC-KAR
promissory note and agreed to repay the loan with interest
at 2% per month but the defendant failed to repay the
same as agreed. Hence, filed the suit. In pursuance of
suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed written
statement contending that the plaintiff is a money lender
and doing the said business without valid license and the
plaintiff fails to prove the endorsement dated 14.08.2016
and prays to dismiss the suit.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings
of the parties, framed the Issues and Additional Issue and
allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to
prove the case of the plaintiff, she herself examined as
PW1(A) and her GPA holder has examined as PW1 and
other witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the
documents at Ex.P1 to P8. On the other hand, defendant
examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents
at Ex.D1 to D7. The Trial Court having considered both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record
particularly, the admission on the part of the DW1 with
NC: 2025:KHC:47465
HC-KAR
respect to Ex.P8 wherein he categorically admitted
issuance of the document of Ex.P8 as well as the legal
notice issued to him and the same was served on him as
per Ex.P6. The Trial Court considering the material on
record, comes to the conclusion that the defendant being a
school teacher, once he admits the execution of document
of Ex.P8, he cannot contend that documents are created.
Hence, the Trial Court decreed the suit directing the
defendant to pay an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of transaction i.e.,
09.02.2016 till realization.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial
Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.5022/2023. The First Appellate Court
having considered the grounds which have been urged in
the appeal, framed the Points for consideration that
whether the Trial Court is right in holding that the
defendant received Rs.5,50,000/- from the plaintiff on
09.02.2016 and thereby the defendant is liable to repay
NC: 2025:KHC:47465
HC-KAR
the said amount with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of
promissory note till realization and whether the judgment
of the Trial Court requires interference of the Court. The
First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record particularly,
considering the material on record, in paragraph 15 taken
note of Ex.P8 as well as Ex.P6 and contend that it is not
the case of defendant that plaintiff obtained his signature
on the blank paper and it is not the case of the defendant
that there was no transaction between the plaintiff and
defendant. Ex.P8 supports Ex.P2. No doubt, in the top of
the said document, date and month is corrected but in the
signature, date and month is correctly stated without any
correction. If Ex.P2 is considered with Ex.P8 which shows
that there was transaction between the defendant and the
plaintiff. In paragraph 16 also, the First Appellate Court
taken note of the fact that in earlier occasion, in
R.A.No.5006/2020, this Court remanded the matter to the
Trial Court with certain directions. After remand, the
NC: 2025:KHC:47465
HC-KAR
plaintiff examined her GPA holder as PW1 and her
evidence was considered by the Trial Court. In the case
on hand, though the signature in Ex.P2 is not similar to
Ex.P8 or Exs.D1 to D3, it is not possible to say that
signature in Ex.P2 is not the signature of the defendant
and execution of Ex.P2 is proved from the evidence of PW1
to PW3. It can be presumed that defendant intentionally
put different signature while executing Ex.P2. Merely
because same is not admitted by the defendant, it is not
meant that it is not his signature. The First Appellate Court
considering both the report and documentary evidence,
particularly admitted document of Ex.P8 comes to the
conclusion that Trial Court not committed any error and
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being
aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
in this second appeal would vehemently contend that that
the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5006/2020, while
NC: 2025:KHC:47465
HC-KAR
remanding the matter, taken note of the evidence given
by the SPA Holder and also made it clear in the order itself
that Trial Court shall exclude the interest for the period
from the date of examining the original SPA Holder till the
date of examining the original plaintiff, in case, the
plaintiff ultimately succeeds in the suit and held to be
entitled for the recovery of suit claim with future interest
only at the final disposal and not otherwise.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and also on perusal of the material on
record, no doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant
brought to notice of this Court that already there was an
order by the First Appellate Court that the Trial Court has
not taken note of the observation that while remanding
the matter, First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5006/2020,
directed the Trial Court with a direction to extend an
opportunity to the plaintiff to enter into the witness box
and to examine in support of her claim. Accordingly, the
plaintiff is also examined as PW1. But the observation of
NC: 2025:KHC:47465
HC-KAR
the First Appellate Court was not taken note of by the Trial
Court while passing the order and from the date of
transaction itself, the interest was awarded. When, the
order passed in R.A.No.5006/2020 was not challenged by
the plaintiff with regard to the observation made in the
order that Trial Court shall exclude the interest for the
period from the date of examining the original SPA holder
till the date of examining the original plaintiff in case, the
plaintiff ultimately succeeds. In the case on hand, GPA
holder was examined on 01.07.2019 and also the plaintiff
was examined on 09.11.2021. In view of not questioning
the said order, the Trial Court ought not to have granted
the interest from the date of transaction. Thus, the order
passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5006/2020
has attained its finality. To that aspect, the appellant
herein succeeds that not liable to pay interest from
01.07.2019 to 09.11.2021. No need to give any
opportunity in view of already order has been passed and
NC: 2025:KHC:47465
HC-KAR
the same has not been challenged and attained its finality.
With this modification, this second appeal is disposed of.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any,
does not survive for consideration and the same stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
