Sri. B M Virupakashaiah S/O B M Veeraiah vs Sri. Unki Harindra S/O Late ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8090 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. B M Virupakashaiah S/O B M Veeraiah vs Sri. Unki Harindra S/O Late ... on 8 September, 2025

                                                    -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492
                                                           CRP No. 100162 of 2024


                          HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
                       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                             BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                        CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100162 OF 2024


                         BETWEEN:

                         1.   SRI. B.M. VIRUPAKASHAIAH S/O. B.M. VEERAIAH
                              AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
                              OCC: COOLIE, C/O. VEERASHAIVAKANAVALI
                              NEAR B.V. ARTS BASAVESHWARA,
                              BAZAR H.B. HALLI, TALUKA H.B. HALLI,
                              DIST BALARI-583212.

                         2.   SRI. B. GANESH S/O. MUGAPPA
                              AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
                              C/O. VEERASHAIVAKANAVALI
                              NEAR B.V ARTS BASAVESHWARA,
                              BAZAR H.B. HALLI,
                              TALUKA H.B. HALLI-583212
                              DIST BALLARI.
                                                                     ...PETITIONERS
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA                 (BY SRI. S.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
KALMATH


Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
                         AND:
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Date: 2025.09.11
10:35:51 +0530           SRI. UNKIHARINDRA S/O. LATE UNKISIDDAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                         R/O. HAMPASAGAR 2ND COONY,
                         H.B. HALLI,
                         TALUK H.B HALI DISTRICT BALLARI 583212.
                                                                     ...RESPONDENT
                         (BY SMT. SONU SUHEL, ADVOCATE)

                             THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
                         ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET-ASIDE THE
                         JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2024 IN SMALL CAUSE
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492
                                        CRP No. 100162 of 2024


HC-KAR




NO.06/2020 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)

1. This petition is filed by the defendants

challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Senior

Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli, in Small Cause

No.06/2020, dated 03.04.2024.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks

before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition

are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of

Rs.96,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. It is stated

that the plaintiff and the defendants are well known to each

other. The respondents approached the petitioner and

jointly borrowed a loan of Rs.80,000/- on 22.07.2018 for

domestic expenses and jointly executed a promissory note

for the said sum of Rs.80,000/- on 22.07.2018, agreeing to

pay interest at 12% per annum. In spite of repeated

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492

HC-KAR

demands and the issuance of a legal notice on 13.01.2020,

the respondents did not settle the claim. Hence, the plaintiff

filed the suit.

4. Respondent has appeared before the trial court

and filed written statement in which they have stated that

respondent Nos.1 and 2 were working in a hotel called

Shivashankaraiah Veerashaiva Khanavali at H.B. Halli. The

proprietor of the said Khanavali is one Shivashankaraiah.

The respondent No.1 is the brother-in-law of said

Shivashankaraiah whereas the respondent No.2 is fostered

by Shivashankraiah.

5. The respondents were working in the said

Khanavali. The proprietor of said hotel Shivashankraiah had

advised them to sale their earnings without misusing the

same. As such, the said Shiveshanakraiah opened a Pigmy

account in the name of respondent No.2 with primary

agricultural credit Co-Operative Ltd, H.B.Halli. One Unki

Neelakantappa S/o Unki Siddappa being the Pigmy agent of

said bank used to collect pigmy on behalf of the said bank

in the name of respondent No.2 who is having a pigmy

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492

HC-KAR

account in the said bank bearing account No.5061 and the

same was running from 07.10.2014. The Pigmy amount was

regularly collecting by the said Unki Neelakantappa.

6. It is further contended that, the owner of the

respondents Shivashankraiah was depositing the Pigmy

amount regularly. After a while the respondents got married

and their marriage was performed by Shivashankraiah.

After their marriage they left the hotel and also stopped

Pigmy payment to the Pigmy account.

7. It is further contended that, since the

respondents were in need of money for their family

necessities, they have approached the Pigmy agent Unki

Neelakantappa and requested to disburse the amount which

was collected in their pigmy account. But, the said Pigmy

agent Unki Neelakantappa exploited the respondents by

looking after their poor condition and he said that, the

pigmy amount was paid by Shivashankraiah and not by the

respondents. Hence, the respondents cannot claim the

amount collected in the Pigmy account. The respondents

have requested the pigmy agent to disburse the amount. By

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492

HC-KAR

looking after the poor condition of the respondents the

pigmy agent has asked them to put their signatures on

several forms including the bond in the form of Promissory

note for disbursal of pigmy amount. He advised the

respondents that if they will be putting their signatures on

papers it will be helpful for him to answer Shivashankaraiah

if he would be claiming the Pigmy amount in future. By

believing the words of pigmy agent the respondents have

put their signatures to the several blank Papers. After that,

the pigmy agent paid Rs.70,000/- as over draft on the

pigmy amount collected in the pigmy amount. After certain

time the pigmy agent demanded the respondents to clear

the dues. As such, on 26.12.2018, on 02.02.2019 and on

04.02.2019 the respondents have cleared Rs.11,000/-,

Rs.49,000/- and Rs.10,500/-. Even after clearance of the

said amount the pigmy agent has not returned the blank

signed papers to the respondents. He has stated that, the

said documents were mis-placed somewhere else. For the

said reason respondents have quarreled with the said Unki

Neelakanatappa. The said Unki Neelakantappa exploited the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492

HC-KAR

respondent No.1 and 2 while demanding for payment of

Rs.1,50,000/- for returning of documents.

8. It is further contended that, due to the said

quarrel held between Said Unki Neelakanappa and the

respondents No.1 and 2, he has mis-used the signed blank

papers of respondent No.1 and 2 and with the help of his

brother Unki Harindra this petition has been filed by the

Unki Neelakantappa against the respondent No.1 and 2. On

the above grounds they pray to dismiss the petition.

9. To prove his claim, the plaintiff examined himself

as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2, and produced six

documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On closure of the

plaintiff's side evidence, two witnesses were examined on

behalf of the respondents as RW.1 and 2, and four

documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.

10. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court

decreed the suit with costs.

11. The petitioner produced the promissory note as

per Ex.P1, the office copy of the legal notice as per Ex.P2,

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492

HC-KAR

the postal receipts as per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, and two

acknowledgments as per Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6.

12. In paragraph No.9(d) of the judgment, the Trial

Court has observed as under:

"9.d In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondents are well known to each other since several years. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 and 2 were working in Shivashankraiah Veerashaiva Khanavali at Hagaribommanahalli. It is also not in dispute that, the respondent No.2 had pigmy account in his name. It is also not in dispute that, the Unki Neelakantappa who is brother of petitioner was collecting pigmy amount from the respondent No.1 and 2 in their hotel. But it is the only dispute that, the respondent No.1 and 2 have not executed Ex.P.1 and received any amount from petitioner. It is their contention that, they do not know the petitioner. The respondents have utterly failed to prove their defence with cogent materials before the court. On the other hand, the petitioner has successfully proved that, the respondent No.1 and 2 have received hand loan of Rs.80,000/- from him and executed an on demand promissory note on 22.07.2018. The present suit is of the year 2020. Hence, it is made clear that, the suit is filed well within time. The petitioner has produced on demand promissory note, office copy of legal notice and postal acknowledgments for having service of Ex.P.2 on respondent No.1. These documents have not been denied by the respondents. Hence, in my considered view the petitioner has successfully proved his case. Hence, I answered Issue no.1 in Affirmative and Issue No.2 in Negative."

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492

HC-KAR

13. It is relevant to mention herein Section 118,

Chapter XIII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which

reads as under:

"118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.--Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:--

(a) of consideration:--that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

(b) as to date:--that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;

(c) as to time of acceptance:--that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;

(d) as to time of transfer:--that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;

(e) as to order of indorsements:--that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear then on;

(f) as to stamp:-- that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;

(g) that holder is a holder in due course:--

that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course:

Provided that, where the instrutment has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492

HC-KAR

lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.

(i) By virtue of clause (a) of section 118 Court is obliged to presume that the promissory note was made for consideration until the contrary is proved.

Initial burden lies on the defendant to prove to non existence of consideration which would lead the Court to believe the non existence of consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal; Mallavarupu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm, 2008 (7) SCC 655: 2008 (8) SCR 1210,

(ii) Section 118 lays down a special rule of evidence applicable to negotiable instruments. The presumption is one of law and thereunder a court shall presume that the instrument was endorsed for consideration: Natarajan v. Marapna Goundr, AIR 2005 Mad 90."

14. In the present case, the respondent has failed to

rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the

N.I. Act. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the

evidence on record in accordance with law and facts.

15. I do not find any error or legal infirmity in the

impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492

HC-KAR

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

AC CT-CMU