M.A. GOWDA Vs. C. DEVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellants were the legal representatives of the original defendant- Sri M.A.Gowda. Arraigning him as a defendant, the present respondent had instituted a suit against him in the Court of learned XIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-18), Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in O.S.No.7559/2004, for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,02,000.00, together with interest thereupon at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till realisation.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court is that the plaintiff and deceased Sri M.A.Gowda (the original defendant), were known to each other and friends. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff lent him a sum of '3,50,000/- for the purpose of his business on 10/10/2001, which amount the defendant agreed to repay within six months along with interest thereupon at 24% p.a. In that regard, the defendant, to whom the said loan in cash was given, executed an on demand Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff and a consideration receipt. However, the defendant did not keep up his promise for repayment of the loan amount. Owing to the consistent reminders by the plaintiff, the defendant issued a cheque for a sum of '50,000/- to the plaintiff, which when presented, came to be dishonoured. In that regard, the plaintiff instituted a criminal proceeding against the defendant for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, during the pendency of the said criminal case, the defendant died. As such, the matter could not be proceeded further. In the meantime, since the defendant did not pay the amount, the plaintiff instituted the present suit. However, due to death of the defendant during the pendency of the suit in a road traffic accident, the legal representatives of the deceased defendant were brought on record, who subsequently contested the matter.

(3.) Due to the death of the original defendant, his legal representatives came on record and through defendant No.1(c), have filed the written statement. In the said written statement, they denied the alleged loan transaction with the plaintiff. On the other hand, they contended that, in the year 1995, the original defendant had approached the plaintiff for a loan of '50,000/-, however, the plaintiff had diverted to one Sri Krishnappa, from whom, the original defendant obtained a loan of '50,000/-. At that time, said Krishnappa had collected a blank cheque with only amount filled and a blank on demand Promissory Note from him. However, though the defendant repaid the said loan amount, Krishnappa on the pretext of alleged misplacement of the cheque and on demand Promissory Note, did not return the same. On the other hand, through the present plaintiff, who was his friend, got the on demand Promissory Note filled for the amount of Rs.3,50,000.00 and also filled the other contents of the Promissory Note and instituted a false suit. They categorically stated that the original defendant Sri M.A.Gowda never borrowed any hand loan from the plaintiff, as such, no liability against him arises.