SANGAPPA BASAPPA Vs. YEMNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendant in O.S.No. 88 of 1989 on the file of the Miunsiff Muddebihal.

(2.) The material facts leading to this secoud appeal are these: The plaintiff Chidanandappa Basr wantray a Aski brought the suit O. S. 38 of 1969 against. the defendant Sangappa Basappa Gogi for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,052 with future interest and costs on a handloan advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant - the consideration amount being paid by issuing cheques in favour of the defendant, drawn on the Karnataka Bank Ltd., Talikot, in which the plaintiff had his account. The plaintiff of 1881). Cheque Cashed-Presum- issued four cheques Exts. P. 1 to P. 4, out of which three cheques Exs. P. 1 to P. 3 were issued in the name of the defendant and Ex. P. 4 was issued in the name of one Veerabhadrappa Malatwad, who was the clerk of the defendant and that amount was also received by the defendant towards the loan. Since the defendant failed to return the amount, the plaintiff filed the above suit for necessary reliefs.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit denying any loan. It was the case of the defendant that the plaintiff sold certain lands belonging to him (Plaintiff) through the assistance and intervention of the defendant and deposited the sale price in the Karnataka Bank Ltd, Talikot. The plaintiff was carrying on money lending business with the amount deposited by him in the Bank. The plaintiff always used to sit in the shop of the defendant and sometimes carrying on his money lending business by issuing cheques to his borrowers. As the plaintiff was not conversant with the writing of cheques, he used to get them written by the defendant and give those cheques to his borrowers. Sometimes, the plaintiff used to ask the defendant to write the cheque in his (defendant's) name and request him to get the cash for him (plaintiff). Thus, it was the case of the defendant that the suit cheques Ext. P. 1 to P.3 were written by the defendant at the instance of the plaintiff in his (defendant's) name and paid the amount to the plaintiff immediately after encashing them. He denied having received the amount covered under the cheque Ex-P. 4 issued in the name of his clerk. On these grounds, he sought for the dismissal of the suit.