P ASWATHAMMA Vs. HOTEL SATHYAPRAKASH BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' appeal from the judgment and decree dated 19th April, 1997, whereby the trial Court (18th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore), decreed plaintiffs claim for recovery of money in O. S. No. 2548 of 1986. The plaintiff-respondent filed the above suit against one Subbaiah for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,09,600/-, with the allegation to the effect that B. S. Subbaiah borrowed a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on 15-3-1983 and 19-5-1983, from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the defendants had taken Rs. 50,000/- on March 15th, 1983 and Rs. 30,000/- on 19th May, 1983, and according to the plaintiff, B. S. Subbaiah, agreed to repay the loan as above. According to plaintiff, Sri B. S. Subbaiah had executed an stamped pronote receipt on May 10th, 1983. It may be mentioned here that due to some confusion, as appears in the plaint vide paragraph V, it was originally typed as 10th May, 1983, instead of 19th May, 1983. Anyhow this confusion appears more apparent and mistaken typing, as under Issue No. 4, the date is mentioned as 19-5-1983. According to the plaintiff, defendants did not repay the loan, and so plaintiff had to file the suit. According to the admitted position, Subbaiah died on 1-6-1983, leaving behind the defendants, that is his widow, viz. , appellant 1 and the three children as the heirs. The plaintiff further alleged that when the plaintiff approached the 1st defendant and issued notice to 1st defendant, the defendants refused to own any liability and so plaintiff had to file O. S. No. 10129 of 1984 and later on the same was withdrawn with permission to file the fresh suit. So the present suit had been filed on 19-4-1986. Plaintiff has claimed the decree for the above amount.

(3.) DEFENDANTS denied the plaintiffs claim. Defendants asserted that B. S. Subbaiah did neither take any loan from the plaintiff-respondent, nor did ever agree to pay any interest and nor did he execute any document or acknowledgement or receipt. The defendants asserted that plaintiff-respondent's claim was based on fabricated documents. The defendants also took the plea that there was no need for Subbaiah to borrow any money from the plaintiff and to repay the same with or without interest. Defendants-appellants further asserted that the suit is the result of a rivalry or ill-will which plaintiff-respondent did bear against defendants-appellants and subbaiah. The defendants-appellants further asserted that plaintiff had no cause of action and further asserted that the suit was time barred. It was also asserted that plaintiff-respondent had no right to file the suit.