C PREMRAJ Vs. C BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was the plaintiff before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at K.G.F. (henceforth for brevity referred to as the 'Trial Court'), who had instituted a suit in O.S.No.1/2005 against the present respondents for recovery of money.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that, the defendants had availed a loan of Rs. 20,000/- on 5.12002 and a sum of Rs. 16,000/- on 29.12002 by him and the defendants had executed On-demand Promissory Note and consideration receipts. Inspite of repeated demands and notice issued to them on 5.2003, the defendants have neither replied to the notice nor repaid the loan amount. Thus, the defendants are due to a sum of Rs. 36,000/- towards principal and a sum of Rs. 17,280/- towards the interest @ 2% per month and notice charges of Rs. 500/- Thus in all, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 53,780/-.

(3.) The defendants appeared before the Trial Court through their Counsel and defendant No.1 filed his written statement, which the second defendant adopted. In their written statement, the defendants have denied the plaint averments. They contended that they availed loan of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 5.12.2002 and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 29.12.2002 from the plaintiff. At the time of advancing the loan, plaintiff had taken their signatures on two blank promissory notes. Further he had also collected interest @ 5% per month and defendant No.1 was paying interest @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. However, plaintiff was not issuing any receipts for having received the interest. The defendants further alleged that the plaintiff had created the suit documents. They have also stated that as per the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 (henceforth for brevity referred to as 'the Act'), the plaintiff was not entitled to claim interest either at 5% or at 2% per month. As per the said Act, the plaintiff had not given security and that he had not maintained the accounts. The plaintiff had manipulated the suit documents claiming excess amount. With this, they prayed to dismiss the suit.