Bangalore District Court
Aravind Kumar M vs Yashodhamma C on 1 April, 2026
/ 1 / O.S.No.311/2023
KABC010011102023
IN THE COURT OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-43)
- : PRESENT :-
Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv,
XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this 1st Day of April, 2026.
Original Suit No.311/2023
Plaintiff :
Aravind Kumar.M., 45 Years, S/o. Late
Munikrishna Shetty, R/o.No.19, 8th
Main, 14th Cross, BTM Layout, II Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 029.
[By Sri.B.T.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate]
/ VERSUS /
Defendant :
Smt.C.Yashodhamma, 58 Years,
W/o.Range Gowda, R/at Byadarahalli
/ 2 / O.S.No.311/2023
Village, Sravanbelogola Hobli,
Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan
District, Karnataka - 573 124.
[By Sri.Chethan.B., Advocate]
***
Date of Institution of the suit : 11.01.2023
Nature of suit : Suit for money recovery
Date of commencement of : 07.12.2023
evidence
Date on which the judgment : 01.04.2026
is pronounced
Duration taken for disposal : Years Months Days
03 03 20
***
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the relief of recovery of money of Rs.5,00,000/- along with future interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under: -
/ 3 / O.S.No.311/2023
Defendant claiming herself as owner of
Sy.No.100 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas agreed to sell the said property to the plaintiff for Rs. 90 Lakhs and plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for the said price by paying advance consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- through RTGS transfer from his ICICI Bank account and another Rs.2,50,000/- through his Axis Bank account. So, plaintiff has paid advance consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. After obtaining the records, it was found that there is a legal proceeding pending with respect to the said property. So, plaintiff shown his inability to purchase the property and defendant has agreed that she has suppressed the true facts and she will refund the advance amount within six months. Plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the said amount, but defendant / 4 / O.S.No.311/2023 postponed the same on one or other pretext. So, plaintiff got issued legal notice on 19.9.2022. Defendant though received the legal notice, neither replied the notice nor repaid advance amount. Hence, cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file this suit. Plaintiff prayed to decree the suit as stated above.
3. On service of suit summons, defendant appeared through her advocate and filed written statement. She has admitted that she is the owner of Sy.No.100, but she denied that she agreed to sell the said property in favour of plaintiff for Rs.90 Lakhs by receiving advance of Rs.5,00,000/-. She denied that she has suppressed the true facts and collected advance amount from plaintiff. She has denied the contents of the plaint in para-wise including the cause of action. In para No.9 / 5 / O.S.No.311/2023 she has specifically contended that she has repaid the entire amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to the plaintiff by way of cash in the presence of witnesses. So, she prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has agreed to purchase property from the defendant and towards advance sale consideration deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 Lakhs through RTGS on 25.03.2021 and 29.03.2021 to the bank account of the defendant ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that on account of defect in the title he has declined to purchase the property ?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled decree for the suit claim ?
(4) What order or decree?
/ 6 / O.S.No.311/2023
5. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff has got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.5. In order to rebut the case of plaintiff, defendant has got examined herself as D.W.1, but has not produced any documents on her behalf. As defendant has not appeared for cross-examination, her evidence was discarded on 17.1.2026. Thereafter, defendant has not chosen to file application to recall said order and not shown her readiness to undergo the cross-examination.
6. The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that his argument may be taken as heard. The argument of defendant was taken as 'nil'. Perused the pleadings, issues, evidence oral and documentary and the materials on record.
/ 7 / O.S.No.311/2023
7. My findings to the aforesaid Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Does not survive for consideration. Issue No.3 : Affirmative in part. Issue No.4 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 AND 3 : - Since the reasoning for these issues are interrelated and overlap with each other, to prevent repetition of facts and for convenience and appreciation of evidence they are taken together for consideration.
9. The burden of proving Issue No.1 is upon the plaintiff and in order to discharge the said burden, he relied upon his oral evidence and Ex.P.1 to P.5. He has reiterated the contents of the plaint in his evidence / 8 / O.S.No.311/2023 affidavit. The learned counsel for the defendant cross- examined him stating that no such oral or written agreement of sale was entered between plaintiff and the defendant. But, he denied the said suggestion. Plaintiff has not produced agreement of sale, but he has produced documents to show that he has transferred an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to the defendant. Ex.P.4 is the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff in Axis Bank, which discloses that on 29.3.2021 he has transferred an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- through NEFT to the defendant Yashoda. Ex.P.5 is the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff in ICICI Bank and this statement also discloses that on 29.3.2021 an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was transferred to the account of Yashoda
- defendant through RTGS. Plaintiff has pleaded this fact / 9 / O.S.No.311/2023 in plaint and the said pleading is proved by him by producing these account statements. So, plaintiff has proved that he has transferred an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the defendant.
10. Defendant in her written statement in para No.9 has specifically contended as under :
"It is false to say that in spite of plaintiff repeated requests and demands, since then, the defendant has failed to pay the same and dodging the repayment on one or the other pretext by giving some lame reasons for the reasons best known best known to the defendant. For the reasons that the plaintiff was not interested in the sale transaction, this defendant has repaid the entire amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff by way of cash in the presence of witness."
/ 10 / O.S.No.311/2023 So, though she denied that she has not received the amount, but she has admitted that she has repaid the entire amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to the plaintiff. But, defendant in her evidence affidavit which was discarded by the Court has not stated that she has repaid the said amount. During cross of P.W.1 also it was not suggested that the said amount was refunded by the defendant. The admission given by defendant in written statement cannot be withdrawn by her in her evidence affidavit or during cross of P.W.1. So, plaintiff has proved that he has given Rs. 5 Lakhs to the defendant and he is entitle for refund of the said amount. Defendant has not discharged her contention that she has already repaid the said amount in the presence of witnesses. She has not tried to examine the witnesses and even she was not / 11 / O.S.No.311/2023 ready to undergo the cross-examination. So, her oral evidence was discarded. She has not proved her contention either through her own evidence or through examining witnesses.
11. Ex.P.1 is the office copy of the legal notice, Ex.P.2 is the postal receipt and Ex.P.3 is the postal acknowledgment. Defendant has received the legal notice of the plaintiff, but she has neither replied the said notice nor refunded the amount. So, considering the evidence on record I hold that plaintiff has successfully proved his case. Defendant has admitted that she is the owner of Sy.No.100. But, she denied that there is litigation with respect to the said property. But, the contention of the plaintiff that defendant agreed to sell the said property by receiving advance amount through / 12 / O.S.No.311/2023 RTGS appears more probable. The suit is not for specific performance of contract, but to recover the advance amount. So, considering the evidence on record I hold that plaintiff has proved his case and entitle for refund of Rs. 5 Lakhs amount from the defendant. Plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 24% p.a. But, looking to the nature of the transaction I hold that plaintiff is entitle for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till its realisation. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.3 in affirmative in part.
12. ISSUE NO.4 : - In view of my findings on Issue No.1 and 3, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in part with costs.
/ 13 / O.S.No.311/2023
Defendant is directed to pay
Rs.5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs] to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till its realisation, within 90 days from the date of this Decree, failing which plaintiff can recover the same by filing execution petition.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected the same directly on computer, signed and then pronounced by me, in open court on this the 1st day of April, 2026.) (Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv), XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff :
P.W.1 : Arvind Kumar.M.
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 : Legal notice dated 19.9.2022 / 14 / O.S.No.311/2023 Ex.P.2 : Postal receipt Ex.P.3 : Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.4 : Plaintiff's Axis Bank Account statement issued by Axis Bank Ex.P.5 : Plaintiff's ICICI Bank Account Statement issued by ICICI Bank.
3. List of witnesses examined / documents exhibited for the defendant :
D.W.1 : C.Yashodamma [Evidence discarded] (Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv), XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
*** / 15 / O.S.No.311/2023 Judgment pronounced in open Court [vide separate judgment] :
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in part with costs.
Defendant is directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs] to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till its realisation, within 90 days from the date of this Decree, failing which plaintiff can recover the same by filing execution petition.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv), XLII ACC&S Judge, Bengaluru City.