N.H. KRISHNA Vs. KRISHNACHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court who had filed a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a Promissory Note, said to have been executed by the defendant. The claim of the plaintiff was that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the basis of the Promissory Note dated 10-3-1996 and received the amount, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, or 2% per month, on the said amount and thereafter, had failed to repay the same on several demands made by the plaintiff. Ultimately, the defendant had issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- dated 22-10-1997 drawn on Canara Bank, Channapatna Branch, towards part satisfaction of the loan amount. However, when the same was presented for realisation, had been returned with an endorsement of the banker that there were insufficient funds in the account and therefore, it was dishonoured. It is in that background that the plaintiff had filed the suit claiming the principal amount with interest and sought a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,56,250/- with current and future interest. The suit was contested and the defendant denied the execution of the Promissory Note and the entire transaction. On the basis of the said pleadings, the Court below had framed two issues, which are as follows.--

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant would point out that the Court below has proceeded to address the suit on extraneous issues, as can be seen from the reasons afforded insofar as the findings on Issue No. 1, namely, the Court has chosen to address the claim of the plaintiff with reference to the aspects, as under:

(3.) While the learned Counsel for the respondent would seek to justify the judgment. On a plain examination of the material on record, the pleadings of the parties and the reasoning of the Trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reason to doubt the signatures on the Promissory Note as well as the cheque in question. The Court below has unfairly rejected the claim of the plaintiff. The reasoning that the plaintiff was required to establish his capacity to lend money and that there was reason to go behind the motive, in borrowing money, are again extraneous circumstances. If the Promissory Note is accepted as having been executed by the defendant, he should be held liable to repay the money which he has borrowed. In this view of the matter, this Court, on a plain examination of the record, would conclude that the plaintiff has established his case. However, the interest claimed on the principal amount is certainly on the higher side, since interest of justice would require that the interest payable by the defendant be reasonable, the suit is decreed with the modification that the defendant shall be liable to repay Rs. 1.00 lakh, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The suit is decreed in terms as above.