BASKER A NAIDU Vs. S N NAGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent remains absent. It is noticed that he has remained absent on earlier occasions as well.

(2.) THE appellant was the defendant before the trial Court. The suit was one for recovery of money. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/ - on 23.11.1997 and he had executed a loan agreement agreeing to repay the amount within one year, along with interest at 1.5% per month. He is also said to have handed over a General Power of Attorney executed by one Muniswamy Reddy in favour of the defendant pertaining to a house site bearing No.8 formed in Sy.No.122, Banasawadi Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet as security for the due repayment of the loan. It transpires that even after a lapse of one year, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount and the interest thereon and in spite of repeated demands, he had failed to do so and therefore, a legal notice was issued, dated 26.7.2000, demanding re -payment. The plaintiff claimed that the notice sent under certificate of posting was duly served on the defendant, but the notice issued through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due was returned as 'not claimed'. Therefore, a suit was filed claiming interest at Rs.14,700/ - on Rs.30,000/ - from 23.11.1997 to 16.08.2000, being the date on which the suit was filed.

(3.) THE suit summons having been served on the defendant, he had entered appearance through his counsel and is said to have filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations and had contended that the suit was not maintainable. It was pointed out that he had already executed a sale deed in respect of the house site bearing No.8 in favour of one Smt.Jyothi under a registered sale deed in the year 1995 itself and therefore, there was no cause of action for the suit and it was a got up claim. On the basis of the said pleadings, the Court below had framed the following issues: