G N SHANKARAPPA Vs. G P CHANDRE GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to admission of the appeal. Respondent's counsel is present before the Court. Perused the records.

(2.) Perusal of the judgment of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court reveals that, the plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,57,500/- along with interest at 12% p.a., on the borrowed amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, basing the claim on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 15.11.2012 agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest as agreed upon on the promissory note. In spite of repeated requests and demands, the defendant has not paid the said amount and therefore, the suit came to be filed. Even before institution of the suit, a notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant calling upon him to make payment of the outstanding amount. The defendant appeared before the trial Court, contested the suit mainly on the ground that there was no occasion for the defendant to take any amount from the plaintiff. It is also the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff and defendant were known to each other since long and they were having money transaction with each other from 2004. On 18.9.2012, in respect of the past money transaction between plaintiff and defendant, a panchayath was convened and the parties have entered into an agreement on that day, wherein the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs through cash to the plaintiff before the panchayathdars and on that day, the plaintiff has returned one blank cheque and one promissory note, out of two cheques and two promissory notes. The defendant on protest has agreed upon the said contents of the document and the parties have signed the document in the presence of the panchayathdars. It is further contended that when the matter has raised between the parties by virtue of the said document marked at Ex.D1 and even they have agreed that they will not have any future transaction with each other, there was no occasion or necessity for the defendant to give to the plaintiff and enter into any money transaction by executing any promissory note. On the basis of the above rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

(3.) In order to establish the case, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and one more witness as PW2 and got marked three documents Ex.P1 to P-3. The defendant was also examined himself as DW1 and got exhibited the documents as D1 and D2 and closed his side. The Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record has answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and Issue Nos.3 & 4 in the partly affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.