MANJUNATH S. Vs. B.K.SUBBARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's appeal. The present appellant had instituted a suit against the present respondent arraigning him as defendant in O.S.No.15413/2006, in the Court of learned XXVI Addl.City Civil Judge, at Mayohall, Bengaluru, CCH-20, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Rs. trial Court'), for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,25,686/- from the defendant.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court was that during the year 2003, when the plaintiff and the defendant were working in a Company called MICO at Audugodi, Bengaluru, in October 2003, at the request of the defendant for a hand loan of a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/-, the plaintiff had lent him a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- on 30.10.2003, in the presence of one Sri H.B.Vasudeva Murthy and Sri T.V.Ranganathan. The defendant had agreed to repay the said sum with an interest at the rate of 15% p.a. and in that regard, he had executed an on demand Promissory Note. In view of the repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff, on 18.11.2004, the defendant gave him a cheque for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, B.T.M.Layout Branch, Bengaluru, with an assurance of paying the balance interest by the end of November 2004. However, the defendant failed to pay the interest and the principle amount and committed default. This constrained the plaintiff to institute a suit against him for recovery of money.

(3.) In response to the summons served upon him, the defendant appeared through his advocate and filed written statement, wherein he contended that though he was working in MICO, wherein the plaintiff was also working during 2003, but, he had no financial necessity to avail any loan from the plaintiff. He contended that he never approached the plaintiff and borrowed any amount of loan, much less, Rs. 8,50,000/-. The defendant has further contended that he assisted the plaintiff in applying for and getting allotment of two sites from Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Rs. Housing Society'), each for Rs. 4,25,000/-. After the registration of those two sites in favour of the plaintiff and his wife, since some dispute had arisen between the Housing Society and the Bengaluru Development Authority, the plaintiff requested the Chairman of the Housing Society through defendant for providing alternative site of higher dimension. To ensure that defendant would impress upon the Chairman to get an alternative site, the plaintiff requested the defendant to sign a Promissory Note assuring that he will not use the said Promissory Note, but, would keep it only as a security. Since the plaintiff was a Senior Officer and his relative, the defendant obliged and signed the Promissory Note in good faith. The said Promissory Note was blank, except the signature and address of the defendant. The plaintiff has made use of the said blank Promissory Note and instituted a false suit.