NAGARAJA Vs. LAKSHMINARAYANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2003 passed in S. C. No. 1790/2001 on the file of the XIII Additional small Causes Judge, Bangalore.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner herein-plaintiff is that, deceased Kondanna/kondaiah, husband of first respondent herein and father of minor respondents 2 to 4 herein, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as loan from petitioner for improving his business in hair dressing-cum-shaving and in consideration of having received the said loan, late Kondanna/ kondaiah had executed a demand promissory note and consideration receipt in favour of petitioner agreeing to repay the same together> with interest at 21% per annum and the said transaction was witnessed by two witnesses. The deceased Kondanna/kondaiah died a year ago without discharging any part of loan or interest during his life time and however, he has left behind considerable properties and that, the respondents 1 to 4 being the legal heirs of late Kondanna/kondaiah have inherited his properties. Therefore, it is the case of petitioner-plaintiff that, respondents 1 to 4 herein are liable to pay the loan amount to the petitioner together with interest thereon. It is the further case of petitioner that, in spite of making repeated demands and request to respondents to make good the loan amount and interest thereon, the respondents have not paid any part of the loan amount. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to issue legal notice through the counsel and the respondents have replied to the same, denying the entire loan transaction. In view of that, petitioner was constrained to initiate the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,800/- including interest of Rs. 4,500/- and legal notice charge of Rs. 300/ -.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 is a major and respondents 2 to 4 are since minors, represented through their natural mother and guardian-respondent No. 1. The first respondent both on her behalf and on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 has filed the written statement denying the alleged loan and the execution of the promissory note and consideration receipt by late Kodanna/kondaiah in favour of petitioner and also disclaimed any knowledge of the execution of demand promissory note and consideration receipt by late Kondanna/ kondaiah. Further, the respondents have contended that, late Kondanna/kondaiah has not left behind any property and as such, they have not succeeded to any of the estate of late kondanna/kondaiah and when they have not succeeded to any property or estate of late kondanna/kondaiah, they are not liable to discharge any of the debts of late Kondanna/ kondaiah. Therefore, they have specifically contended that, they are not liable to pay any amount much less the suit claim to the petitioner and requested to dismiss the suit with costs.