LAWS(KAR)-2024-7-151

ANNEGOWDA Vs. M.T.HANUMEGOWDA

Decided On July 12, 2024
ANNEGOWDA Appellant
V/S
M.T.Hanumegowda Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree dtd. 12/12/2017 passed in R.A.No.29/2017 setting aside the judgment and decree dtd. 6/3/2017 passed in O.S.No.11/2016 and granting the relief in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the defendant had borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 from the plaintiff on 19/3/2013 and agreed to repay the same with interest at 2% per month. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had executed an on demand promissory note for having availed the loan and agreed to repay whenever he demands. Inspite of demand, he did not pay the principal amount or the interest. Hence, he issued legal notice on 10/12/2015 and the same was served and untenable reply was given and hence he filed a suit for recovery of Rs.8,61,000.00 with interest. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and admitted that he had borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 from the plaintiff and at the time of borrowing, the plaintiff had collected three cheques drawn on SBM Bank, Mandya. It is also contended that the plaintiff had taken a blank stamp paper signed by the defendant. As agreed, the defendant had paid the interest regularly and he also paid the entire principal amount to the plaintiff on 5/5/2013 in the presence of two witnesses, namely Sri N. Raju and Sri Ramesha T.L., residents of Agasanapura Village and Talagavadi Village respectively. When the amount was repaid, the plaintiff did not return the blank cheque and promissory note saying that he has misplaced them. It is also contended that the plaintiff had misused the cheque, which he had collected and filed a case against him in C.C.No.910/2015 and the same is pending adjudication. It is also contended that the plaintiff has misused the promissory note and filed a frivolous suit and hence prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

(3.) The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: