H S NANJUNDAPPA Vs. C V SHASHIDHARA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is defendant's second appeal from the judgment and decree dated 3-12-1984 by civil judge, hassan (Sri S.R.Venkatesha Murthy), delivered in regular appeal No. 31 of 1983 arising out of judgment and decree dated 28-2-1983 in o.s. No. 315 of 1979 of the court of munsiff, arsikere, dismissing the defendants appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial court decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,930/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum.

(2.) the plaintiff's case in brief is that the defendant-appellant took a loan of rs, 2,000/- on interest at the rate of 1 1/2% per mensum on 10-6-1976 and executed pronote thereof. The plaintiffs further case has been that on 26-6-1976 the defendant-appellant further took a sum of Rs. 500/- as a loan and executed a receipt of the said sum and thereafter on 7-8-1976 the defendant again procured a sum of Rs. 350/- as loan from the plaintiff-respondent and executed a receipt in plaintiffs favour. The interest accrued in respect of the subsequent item was also 1 1/2% per mensum. The plaintiffs case is that defendant did not pay that amount and according to the plaintiffs case, a sum of Rs. 1,080/- became due as interest on the sum of Rs. 2,000/- which was the subject-matter of pronote and further a sum of Rs. 270/- and Rs. 180/- became due as interest under the transaction exhibited by receipts dated 26-6-1976 and 7-8-1976. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant did not pay the above mentioned advances to the defendant-appellant as loan nor did he pay anything towards the interest. So the cause of action for filing the suit for recovery of the above mentioned sums arose and the plaintiff claimed a decree for recovery of money in total amounting to Rs. 4,380/-, in the light of the facts and transactions mentioned above.

(3.) the defendant-appellant put in appearance. He admitted to have taken a sum of rs, 2,000/- as a loan and to have executed promissory note dated 10-6-1976 and also admitted the rate of interest accrued. The defendant-appellant further took the plea that so far as this amount of Rs. 2,000/- and interest thereon is concerned, there had been an account and about Rs. 2,945/- became due on account of principal and interest due thereon i.e., due with respect to the transaction covered by the promissory note and that out of that sum he paid a sum of Rs. 2,800/-. The defendant submitted that Rs. 145/- was no doubt due and was payable. With respect to the two transactions dated 26-6-1976 and 7-8-1976, defendant denied that defendant-appellant did take these sums from the plaintiff in cash or towards the loan transaction or that any interest accrued upon in respect of these amounts. The defendant's plea is that really in all total quantity of 1000 coconuts were supplied by the defendant-appellant to the plaintiff-respondent and thus these two sums of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 350/- were paid towards the price of the coconuts supplied and the receipt was issued in respect of these two sums i.e., in regard to the transaction of supply of coconuts to the plaintiff. So the defendant denied any liability to pay any amount as due or as loan or interest thereon. According to defendant only a sum of Rs. 145/- has been payable by defendant-appellant to the plaintiff-respondent.