PETER J.R.PRABHU Vs. DAPHNEY D MELLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellant was the defendant against whom the present respondent as a plaintiff had instituted a suit in the Court of learned XXX Addl.City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Rs.trial Court'), in O.S.No.4852/2001 for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,46,090/- with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. thereupon. The said suit came to be partly decreed by the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 30.1.2012. It is against the said judgment and decree, the defendant in the trial Court has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court is that she had lent a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant in the year 1996 through a cheque bearing No.347996, dated 12.5.1996, drawn on Andhra Bank. The defendant had promised to repay the said loan with interest at 24% p.a. In that regard, the defendant had paid interest for one year and thereafter stopped making payment and also failed to return the principal. However, on 20.1.1999, plaintiff and defendant came to a fresh understanding for repayment of Rs.5,01,400/-, the balance calculated as on 31.12.1998 and succeeding installment with interest thereon to be paid on 15th of every second month until entire amount is duly repaid. Though the defendant paid first five installments, wherein, the last installment being on 15.9.1999, but, thereafter failed to honour the agreement. Further, he paid Rs.15,000/- through cheque on 9.10.2000. Plaintiff got issued a legal notice to him on 19.1.2001, but, the defendant did not respond. This constrained the plaintiff to institute a suit for recovery of money against the defendant.

(3.) In response to the summons served upon him, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement, wherein he has denied the alleged loan transaction with the plaintiff. He also denied that he had paid interest for one year and thereafter failed to pay the principal amount. He further denied the alleged fresh understanding said to have been arrived at between them on 20.1.1999, fixing new repayment schedule of Rs.5,01,400/-. He specifically contended that at no point of time he had borrowed any loan from the plaintiff nor paid any installment or interest as per the alleged understanding said to have been arrived at between them on 20.1.1999.