Bangalore District Court
Sri Ambareeh Hegde S/O vs Smt.Komala W/O.N.Prasanna on 23 March, 2015
THE COURT OF XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE (CCH-45).
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2015.
PRESENT
Shri.RAVI N.M, B.Com., LL.B.,
XLIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
O.S.NO.958/2015
Plaintiff: Sri Ambareeh Hegde S/o.
A.S.Hegade, aged about 43
years, r/at. Santhosh Residence,
Santhosh Nagar, Athrodi post,
Udupi District-576107.
[By Sri A.V.Amarnathan, Adv.]
-Vs-
Defendant: Smt.Komala W/o.N.Prasanna,
r/at.No.91, 2 Main, 16th Cross,
nd
Geddalahalli, Bengaluru-94.
Also at:
Hotel Rajkamal,
1st Main, Kumar Park West,
Bengaluru-20.
(Defendant: Ex-parte)
2 OS.NO.958/2015
Date of Institution : 29.01.2015
Nature of the suit : Money Suit
Date of recording
of evidence : 18.03.2015
Date of Judgment : 23.03.2015
Total Duration : Days Months Year
24 01 00
JUDGMENT
The suit of the plaintiff is for recovery of Rs.6,20,000/- from the defendant.
2. The facts pleaded in the plaint in brief are that, the husband of the defendant and the plaintiff are close friends and husband of the defendant by name Prasanna had availed a loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 8.12.2012 from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same in a short span and also executed On Demand Promissory Note and issued a cheuqe, but despite demand, he did not repay the said amount, but unfortunately, on 22.5.2013 Prasanna committed suicide and 3 OS.NO.958/2015 thereafterwards, the plaintiff demanded that money from the defendant on the ground that there is property standing in the name of deceased Prasanna and also the defendant, but the defendant did not care to repay the said amount, which was loaned by her husband and thereby, the plaintiff got issued legal notice and even despite demand made through legal notice, that amount was not paid and thereby, sought for decree for Rs.6,20,000/- claiming to be the principal amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs and 16% interest p.a. on the loan amount from 1.5.2013 till the date of filing the suit.
3. After the suit was instituted, suit summons was ordered to the defendant and despite service of the same, the defendant did not appear before the Court and thereby, she was placed ex-parte.
4. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and documents from Exs.P.1 to P.9 were got marked. 4 OS.NO.958/2015
5. I have heard the arguments of learned advocate appeared for the plaintiff and also perused the case records, on its basis, the following points would arise for my determination:
POINTS FOR DETERMIANTION
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he had lent Rs.5.00 lakhs to the husband of the defendant by name Prasanna as hand loan which he sought that amount to meet his financial exigencies and issued a cheque for Rs.5.00 lakhs in favour of the plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, after death of husband of defendant, he made demand for payment of the amount due to him with the defendant, but the defendant did not repay that amount and thereby, entitled for recovery of loan amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs together with interest as prayed for in the plaint?
3. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
5 OS.NO.958/2015
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
7.POINTS NO.1 & 2: These issues are inter-connected
with each other and for better appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, all these issues are taken together for consideration.
8. The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that the husband of the defendant and the plaintiff are close friends and husband of the defendant by name Prasanna had availed a loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 8.12.2012 from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same in a short span and also executed On Demand Promissory Note and issued a cheuqe, but despite demand, he did not repay the said amount, but unfortunately, on 22.5.2013 Prasanna committed suicide and thereafterwards, the plaintiff demanded that money from the defendant on the ground that there is property standing in the name of deceased Prasanna and also the defendant, but 6 OS.NO.958/2015 the defendant did not care to repay the said amount, which was loaned by her husband and thereby, the plaintiff got issued legal notice and even despite demand made through legal notice, that amount was not paid and thereby, sought for decree for Rs.6,20,000/- claiming to be the principal amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs and 16% interest p.a. on the loan amount from 1.5.2013 till the date of filing the suit.
9. In order to substantiate the oral evidence, the plaintiff has produced the following documents:
1. Copy of On Demand Promissory Note dated:8.12.2012.
2. Copy of the cheque dated:-nil-
3. Copy of the legal notice dated:12.8.2014
4. Copy of RPAD receipts
5. Copy of the death certificate dated:22.5.13.
6. Postal receipt
7. Two letters given to the post master District offices building, post office.
8. Reply sent by the post office.
10. On perusal of the above referred documents particularly Ex.P1 and P2 documents, it is very much clear that the husband of the defendant had availed loan of Rs.5.00 7 OS.NO.958/2015 lakhs from the plaintiff on 8.12.2012 and also executed Ex.P1 and P2 documents, but it is very much clear that, despite demand, he did not repay that amount and the husband of the defendant committed suicide as deposed by the plaintiff on 22.5.2013. Ex.P6 is the death certificate of husband of the defendant and thereby, it is very much clear that, before payment of the loan amount which was due to the plaintiff, the husband of the defendant has committed suicide.
11. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, there is property standing jointly in the name of plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant has succeeded to the estate of her husband and despite there was a demand made by the plaintiff to the defendant as per Ex.P3 legal notice she did not repay the loan amount due to the plaintiff. It is the legal obligation on the part of the defendant to pay the loan amount which was availed by her husband since she is said to have succeeded to the property of her husband. No doubt, the plaintiff has not produced any documents before the Court that the property stood jointly in the name of plaintiff and the 8 OS.NO.958/2015 defendant, which was purchased during the life time of husband of defendant, but the law has casted obligation that, in the event of any succession of any property left by the deceased, the beneficiary of the property is liable to discharge the legal obligation of the deceased person to the extent of property succeeded.
12. Considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, it is very much clear that the plaintiff had lent an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the husband of the defendant and he has executed Ex.P1 and P2 documents and during his life time he did not repay that amount to the plaintiff.
13. Despite service of suit summons, the defendant did not appear before the Court and denied the claim of the plaintiff by filing her written statement and also cross- examining the evidence of P.W.1. In view of the clear documents produced by the plaintiff referred supra, this Court is of the opinion that, it is a fit case wherein to pass a 9 OS.NO.958/2015 conditional decree in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that, in the event the defendant has succeeded to any of the properties of the deceased, then she is liable to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiff.
14. The plaintiff has contended that, that the loan amount availed by the husband of the defendant, he was liable to pay interest at the rate of 22% p.a. There is no documentary proof produced by the plaintiff to show that he was entitled to charge 22% interest p.a. on the amount lent to the husband of the defendant. Having regard to the nature of transaction and closeness of friendship said to be existed between plaintiff and the husband of the defendant, this Court holds that, if the rate of interest is fixed at 12% p.a. from the date of loan transaction till realization of decretal amount, that would meet the ends of justice, with these observations, the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative and Point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.
10 OS.NO.958/2015
15.POINT NO.3: For the foregoing reasons assigned on point Nos.1 and 2 and the findings recorded on them, the following order is passed:
ORDER A conditional decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff as under:
1. The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with cost against the defendant.
2. The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.5.00 lakhs being the principal loan amount from the defendant.
3. The plaintiff is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of loan till realization of the decretal amount from the defendant.
4. It is further ordered and decreed that, before recovery of the decretal amount, the plaintiff shall establish before the Execution Court that the defendant has 11 OS.NO.958/2015 succeeded to any of the properties of her deceased husband so as to have the legal obligation to discharge the debt raised by her husband, with these conditions, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as referred above.
5. Draw decree in terms of judgment.
*** (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of March, 2015).
(RAVI N.M.) XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : Sri Ambareeh Hegde.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT: 12 OS.NO.958/2015
- Nil -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P1: E-Stamp dated:8.12.2012 Ex.P2: Cheque issued by husband of defendant Ex.P3: Legal notice issued to the defendant. Ex.P4 & P5 : Postal receipt Ex.P6 : Death certificate of husband of defendant
Ex.P7 & P8: Two letters given to the post master District offices building, post office.
Ex.P9 : Reply sent by the office LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:
- Nil -
XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.13 OS.NO.958/2015
23.3.2015 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (VIDE SEPARATE JUDGMENT) A conditional decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff as under:
1. The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with cost against the defendant.
2. The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.5.00 lakhs being the principal loan amount from the defendant.
3. The plaintiff is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of loan till realization of the decretal amount from the defendant.
4. It is further ordered and decreed that, before recovery of the decretal amount, the plaintiff shall establish before the Court that the defendant has succeeded to any of the properties of her deceased husband so as to have the legal obligation to discharge the debt raised by her husband, with these conditions, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as referred above.
4. Draw decree in terms of judgment.
[RAVI N.M.] 14 OS.NO.958/2015 XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE.