B. A. BHEEMRAJ Vs. N. SUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellant was the defendant in the Court of XIV Addl. City Civil Judge at Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), against him the present respondent as a plaintiff had instituted a suit in O.S.No.10407/2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- with costs.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court is that the plaintiff knew the defendant, who was working at Antharika Aarthika Salahegara Shake, "B" Inner Administration and Transport, IFAB Section, M.S.Building Part III, Bengaluru. Based on the representation made by the defendant to him that he would get the agricultural land of the plaintiff converted into non-agricultural use, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in the month of August 2003. The defendant failed to deposit the said amount in the Revenue Department and utilized it for his own use. When asked by the plaintiff for refund of the said amount, the defendant in September 2004 issued to him two cheques one for Rs.7,50,000/- dated 09.09.2004 drawn on Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Vidhana Soudha Branch, Bengaluru and another cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- dated 26.12.2004 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Basaveshwara Nagar Branch, Bengaluru. The plaintiff presented the cheque issued for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- for realisation. However, the same came to be dishonoured and returned with the endorsement 'insufficient funds'. When the same was brought to the notice of the defendant, he requested two months time to make payment. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 01.08.2005 to the defendant demanding him to pay the cheque amount within a month from the receipt of the notice. The defendant failed to receive the notice, as such, the same was returned to the sender. Since the defendant failed to pay the amount and having no other alternative, the plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) In response to the summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement, wherein he denied the plaint averments. He denied that the plaintiff was well acquainted with him. He denied that he had ever induced the plaintiff to pay him a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on the ground of alleged conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose. The defendant submitted that he is working in Transport Department and hence, there is no question of he being in acquaintance with the plaintiff or with the people belonging to Revenue Department. He stated that he never assured the plaintiff in getting his land converted into non-agricultural use. He also stated that he neither asked the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- nor received any such amount from him. On the other hand, the defendant contended that he knows the father of the plaintiff, who approached him and offered to buy sites for him, which was situated in Venkateshapura, believing the words of the father of the plaintiff and agreeing to buy the sites, he issued two cheques one for Rs.7,50,000/- and another for Rs.2,50,000/- without mentioning the name of the payee in them. He handed over those cheques to the father of the plaintiff Sri.V.Nagarajappa in the year 2003 i.e., much earlier to the alleged suit transaction. Later he came to know that the sites which he intended to buy from the plaintiff's father were already acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'BDA'), and thereafter, he demanded from the father of the plaintiff for return of the cheques, instead of he returning the cheques to the defendant, the plaintiff has misused the same and plaintiff has presented those cheques and got the bank endorsements regarding dishonour of the cheques. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff has misused the cheques and filed criminal case in C.C.No.8748/2005 before the competent Court with respect to the dishonour of cheque for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and another case in C.C.No.20419/2005 with respect to dishonour of cheque for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, both for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'N.I.Act'). In one of those two cases, the defendant got acquitted; another case the plaintiff withdrew the same and filed afresh a criminal case in C.C.No.551/2005, which also later withdrawn by him. Thus, the plaintiff, having failed in his attempt to criminally prosecute the defendant, has approached the Civil Court under the present suit.