Ganesh S/O Shri Kishan vs S.K. Kanakrajan S/O Shri ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4863 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

                           BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 54/2022
Ganesh S/o Shri Kishan, R/o House No. 239 D Railway Workshop
Colony, Kota Junction, Kota-Rajasthan.
                                                       ----Appellant-Defendant
                                     Versus
S.k. Kanakrajan S/o Shri Santuyagu, R/o House No. 223 B,
Railway Workshop Colony, Kota Junction, (Raj.)
                                                        ----Respondent-Plaintiff

For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Ishwar Lal Jain
For Respondent(s)          :



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL


                                  Judgment
15/07/2022

1.      Appellant-defendant       has      preferred        this    second   appeal

assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2021 in Civil

Regular Appeal No.41/2012 by the Additional District Judge No.1,

Kota (Raj.), dismissing appeal and affirming the judgment and

decree dated 18.04.2012 in Civil Suit No. 42/2006 by the

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.4, Kota (Raj.) whereby

and whereunder the plaintiff's money suit has been decreed and

plaintiff has been held entitled to receive Rs.44,800/- from

defendant further he has been held entitled to receive interest @

6% on principle amount Rs.35,000/- from the date of filing the

suit.

2. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the

impugned judgments.

(2 of 4) [CSA-54/2022]

3. Facts of the case are that on 15.09.2002 defendant obtained

a loan of Rs.35,000/- from plaintiff at the interest of 24%, which

money was to be refunded within one year. In this regard

defendant has also executed a promissory note, but he failed to

refund the amount within one year. Therefore, legal notice through

advocate dated 11.11.2003 was issued to defendant, asking to

repay Rs.35,000/- plus interest Rs.9,800/- for 14 months, total

amount Rs.44,800/- was to repay by defendant. Finally, the suit

was filed for repaying Rs.44,800/- with further interest at the rate

of 18% till payment. On service, the defendant denied to have

taken any money from plaintiff and alleged that no promissory

note was executed by defendant. He stated that plaintiff was

running private society in which the defendant was member and

when he demanded money from plaintiff he refused for which

defendant filed criminal case against plaintiff, therefore, the

plaintiff is using forged promissory note against the defendant.

4. Issues were struck and both parties led evidence oral and

documentary. Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and exhibited

promissory note (Ex.1). He also examined PW.2 Pyar Singh

Meena, who filled up promissory note. The defendant examined

himself as DW.1 and denied the fact of taking money, but he

admitted his signatures on promissory note (Ex.1).

5. Having considered evidence of both parties, the trial court

held that Rs.35,000/- were taken by defendant, as the defendant

has not care to reply the notice sent by plaintiff and consequently

issues were decided against defendant and decreed the suit as

aforesaid vide judgment dated 18.04.2012, which judgment has

(3 of 4) [CSA-54/2022]

been upheld by the appellate court vide judgment dated

11.11.2021. Thus there is concurrent finding against the

defendant.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant has not been able to

prove his case or to point out any perversity or make out any

substantial question of law in respect of the judgment and decree

passed by courts below. The conclusion of the courts below are

based on findings of fact. It is a case of money decree, where the

defendant has miserably failed to prove his case, as alleged, on

the contrary he has admitted his signatures on promissory note.

In such circumstances, concurrent findings are not to be interfered

with by this Court as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan

Gujar [(1999)3 SCC 722] and catena of other judgments

passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu &

Ors., [(2001)9 SCC 521], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs.

Narayanappa & Ors., [(2019) 6 SCC 409], Bholaram Vs.

Ameerchand, [(1981)2 SCC 414], Ishwar Das Jain Vs.

Sohan Lal, [(2000)1 SCC 434] and State of Madhya Pradesh

Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [(2019)10 SCC 595], C.

Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy and

ors. [(2020)4 SCC 659] has held that the concurrent findings of

facts even if erroneous cannot be disturbed by the High Court in

exercise of the powers under Section 100 CPC. This proposition is

well established. Findings of fact based on appreciation of

evidence are the province of the trial court and the first appellate

court.

(4 of 4) [CSA-54/2022]

7. In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts

below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned

judgments, hence the second appeal is hereby dismissed.

8. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

9. There is no order as to costs.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SACHIN /35

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)