V.PARUSHURAMAPPA Vs. CHIGATERI RAMANA GAUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.Santosh B.Mane., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde., for respondent have appeared in person.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are these: It is stated that the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff a hand loan of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for his family's necessities and his immediate needs. Further, the defendant availed the said loan of Rs.50,000.00(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by executing a demand promissory note on 21/4/2015 in favor of the plaintiff and agreed to pay interest at 24% per annum on the amount availed. It is averred that after availing of the loan, the defendant did not repay the amount. The plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the loan amount and interest many times. He issued a lawyer's notice dtd. 22/4/2017 and the same was served to the defendant; there was no reply from him. The defendant was due to pay an amount of Rs.75,800.00 (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand and Eight Hundred only) inclusive of interest and miscellaneous charges. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to take shelter under the Court of law and accordingly filed a suit for recovery of money. After service of summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed a written statement. The defendant denied the plaint averments. He contended that he is an agriculturist and he is residing at Nandibevur Village in Hararapanahalli Taluk. There was no necessity to get a loan from the plaintiff. He denied signatures on the alleged promissory note. He contended that the plaintiff's witnesses and scribe of the suit pronote colluded with each other, created a suit promissory note, and filed a false suit against him just to enrich themselves. The defendant specifically contended that he has not received any amount from the plaintiff as mentioned in the pronote. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in law. The plaintiff is a money lender without a money lending license as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed. Among other grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: ISSUES