Karnataka High Court
H N Dhananjaya vs H N Malleshappa on 7 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30708
RFA No. 1835 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1835 OF 2022 (MON)
BETWEEN:
1. H. N. DHANANJAYA
S/O. LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
BEML, NO.206/D1, BHAGIRATHI
BEHIND NCC CAMPUS
RAMESHWARAM COLONY
BARIATA ROAD
RANCHI - 834 009, JHARKANDH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H. N. MALLESHAPPA
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M S/O. LATE NANJAPPA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
COURT OF R/AT NO.1350, 2ND CROSS
KARNATAKA
6TH BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT
NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 073.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJESHA SHETTIGARA, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2022 PASSED IN
OS No.7572/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU PARTLY DECREEING
THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30708
RFA No. 1835 of 2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present first appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2022 in OS No. 7572/2018 on the file of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ('trial Court'), whereby the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of money and directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of payment till its realisation.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that in the second week of October 2015, at the request of the defendant-his brother who pleaded financial difficulty, he advanced a hand loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was transferred to the defendant's bank account on 15.10.2015 and further a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 20.10.2015, both through net banking. The defendant -3- NC: 2025:KHC:30708 RFA No. 1835 of 2022 HC-KAR assured repayment within one month but failed to do so prompting issuance of legal notice.
3. The defendant while admitting the relationship denied the loan transaction, contending that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed after three years from the date of payment. He further contended that the alleged payments were towards different family arrangement and not a legally enforceable debt. He also contended that he was working in BEML Limited in Ranchi, Jharkhand State and was earning sufficient income from his profession and there was no financial difficulties.
4. The trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that Exhibit P1-the bank statement, clearly established transfer of Rs.1,50,017.10 on 15.10.2015 and Rs.50,005.70 on 20.10.2015 from the plaintiff's account to the defendant's account. Exhibit P7 (computerized copy of the WhatsApp messages dated 11.10.2017) showed the defendant's acknowledgment of the loan and his intention to repay. Further that the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:30708 RFA No. 1835 of 2022 HC-KAR defendant failed to prove repayment or rebut the presumption of liability arising from the evidence produced. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial Court erred in relying upon the WhatsApp messages without authentication as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('Evidence Act' for short) and that the printouts constituted secondary evidence without requisite certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It was argued that, absent valid acknowledgment, the suit was barred by limitation and no legally recoverable debt existed.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that Exhibit P1 unequivocally proved the transfer of funds, and Exhibit P7 corroborated acknowledgment of the debt. The acknowledgment dated 11.10.2017 being within the limitation period extended the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:30708 RFA No. 1835 of 2022 HC-KAR period of filing the suit. The defendant neither denied receipt in his pleadings with specificity nor established repayment.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is :
"whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court warrants any interference by this Court?
9. Exhibit P1-the plaintiff's bank statement, stands uncontroverted and shows direct credit into the defendant's account. The defendant's bare plea of a 'family arrangement', as contended by the appellant's counsel, is unsupported by any documentary or oral evidence. The WhatsApp message dated 11.10.2017 (Exhibit P7), the appellant/defendant disputes its mode of proof. The message was not denied by leading evidence by the defendant and no challenge was made to the genuineness by cross examining PW1. The loan transaction was on -6- NC: 2025:KHC:30708 RFA No. 1835 of 2022 HC-KAR 15.10.2015 and the last transaction was on 20.10.2015, and the suit is filed on 20.10.2018 well within limitation.
10. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act governs the admissibility of electronic records. Section 65B (4) reads as under :
"65B. Admissibility of electronic records.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
2. xx xx
3. xx xx
4. In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:30708 RFA No. 1835 of 2022 HC-KAR this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,-
(a)identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b)giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c)dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-
section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it."
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:30708 RFA No. 1835 of 2022 HC-KAR
11. Under the Evidence Act, Section 65B prescribes a different framework that governs admissibility of electronic device. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others1 (Arjun Panditrao) has now clarified the interpretation of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The issues that fell for consideration before the Apex Court was (1) whether the certificate under Section 65B(4) must be produced even when the original record of the electronic device is available, or does it have to be given only when a secondary record of the electronic evidence is produced ? (2) whether compliance under Section 65B(4) is mandatory even in a situation when it is not possible to obtain the certificate from the competent authority? The Apex Court held that compliance under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act has to be made only when secondary copies of an electronic record are relied upon by any party. In the said judgment the Apex Court upheld the decision 1 2020 (7) SCC 1 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:30708 RFA No. 1835 of 2022 HC-KAR of the High Court even though it had relied on electronic evidence that was not certified under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. This was because along with electronic evidence, the High Court also had relied on admissible evidence. Thus, the authoritative decision in the case of Arjun Panditrao (supra) has clarified, obtaining a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act shall be a condition precedent in all situations where secondary copies of an electronic record are produced. The Apex Court highlighted the need to device safeguards to preserve and retain electronic records.
12. The Section 65B certificate issued by the plaintiff in the facts of this case were remained unchallenged in the cross-examination and there was no defence to rebut it and thus not fatal. The probative value though not conclusive is reinforced by admitted bank transfers. The defendant did not establish repayment, nor did he lead evidence to show the amounts were for any other purpose. Mere denial without supporting proof cannot displace the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30708 RFA No. 1835 of 2022 HC-KAR plaintiff's affirmative case in view of the cogent or documentary evidence establishing the loan transaction and absence of proof of repayment. The trial Court rightly decreed the suit. There is no perversity or material illegality found in the impugned judgment warranting interference. The point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Regular First Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and decree of the trial Court stands confirmed.
Sd/-
____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8