Bangalore District Court
Lakshmi K vs Vasantha Yogesh on 8 October, 2025
KABC010037952020
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8)
PRESENT
SRI. B.DASARATHA., B.A., LL.B.
XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
O.S. No.1015/2020
Plaintiff: Smt. Lakshmi K.,
W/o. Dayananda Babu,
Aged about 46 years,
R/a. No.1, First Cross,
First Main Road,
Near Kanyakumari School,
Mallathahalli, Bangalore -56,
Mobile: 8711933875.
(By Adv. Sri.B.S.Anil Kumar)
Vs.
2 O.S. No.1015/2020
Defendant: Smt. Vasantha Yogesh,
W/o. Yogesh Kumar,
Aged about 42 years,
R/a. No.95, Second Floor,
First Cross, First Main Road,
Upadyaya Layout,
Nagadevanahalli,
Bangalore - 560 056,
Mobile No.9341498822.
(By Adv. Sri. Girish C.S.)
Date of institution of the suit : 06.02.2020
Nature of the suit : Money Suit & Permanent
Injunction
Date of commencement of : 12.07.2022
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 08.10.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
05 08 02
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
3 O.S. No.1015/2020
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking recovery of ₹43,95,000/- (Rupees Forty-Three Lakhs Ninety-Five Thousand Only) with future interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, power of attorney holders or any persons claiming under her from alienating or creating a charge over the schedule property till the settlement of the suit claim.
2. The brief averments of the plaint as follows: -
The plaintiff claims to run a silk saree business under the name "Chayaputra Silk Apparels" and states that her husband, a Driver with KSTDC, provided additional income to support their family. The defendant, a distant relative, approached the plaintiff on 20.12.2015 for a hand loan of ₹20,00,000/- for business development, offering the title deed of her residential property (Schedule Property) as security and agreeing to pay interest at 24% per annum. Hand Loan Agreement dated 26.12.2015 was executed and the defendant delivered the registered sale deed as security.4 O.S. No.1015/2020
2(a). On 30.03.2016, the defendant sought an additional loan of ₹10,00,000/- for share business, providing two undated cheques No.596203 and 592604, each for ₹5,00,000/- as security and executing another Hand Loan Agreement on 30.03.2016 and 10.04.2016.
2(b). The defendant paid interest at 24% per annum until December 2016. Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded repayment of the total loan of ₹30,00,000/-. On 08.02.2017, the defendant executed an Agreement cum Acknowledgment of Debt, reducing the interest rate to 18% per annum and issuing 5 cheques bearing No.950487 to 950491, totaling ₹30,00,000/-.
2(c). The defendant paid interest until June 2017, but defaulted thereafter, instructing the plaintiff not to present the cheques due to insufficient funds. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to repay the loan despite demands, including meeting on 20.03.2019 and police complaint lodged on 02.04.2019 at Jnanabharathi Police Station, where the 5 O.S. No.1015/2020 defendant promised repayment within three months, but failed to comply.
2(d). The plaintiff further claims that in January 2020, she learned that the defendant was attempting to sell the schedule property, prompting the prayer for the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, this suit.
3. The defendant after appearing though her advocate has filed the following written statement. The brief averments of the written statement as follows: -
The defendant denies the loan transactions, asserting that the plaintiff running unlicensed finance and chit fund business. The defendant claims that, she was a subscriber to the plaintiff's chit fund and provided signatures on blank e- stamp papers and cheques as security for chit transactions, which the plaintiff misused to fabricate the Loan Agreements.
3(a). The defendant admits ownership of the schedule property, but claims the original sale deed was lost in transit, as 6 O.S. No.1015/2020 evidenced by Lost Article Report dated 31.03.2019. She denies delivering it to the plaintiff as security.
3(b). The defendant alleges that the cheques were blank when given and were misused by the plaintiff. She further claims that the plaintiff invested in shares through one Kariappa, introduced by the defendant and the cheques were provided as security for those investments, not loans.
3(c). The defendant asserts that the suit is not maintainable due to lack of cause of action, improper court fee, and lack of jurisdiction. She seeks dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my predecessor-in-office has framed the following issues for determination:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has executed Loan Agreement dated 26.12.2015 by receiving cash of ₹20 lakh?7 O.S. No.1015/2020
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has executed Loan Agreement dated 30.03.2016 and 10.04.2016 by receiving cash of ₹10 lakh?
3. Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff has taken her signature on blank E stamp paper and blank cheques as contented in para No.3, 5 and 7 of her written statement?
4. Whether the defendant proves that the Loan Agreements produced by plaintiff are not valid documents as contended in para No.6 of her written statement?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on ₹30 Lakhs from 01.07.2017 to 31.01.2020 as pleaded in para No.7 of the plaint?
6. What order or decree ?
5. After settlement of issues, the plaintiff herself has entered into the witness box as PW-1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked through her and closed her side. On behalf of the defendant, defendant herself has entered into the witness box 8 O.S. No.1015/2020 as DW-1 and examined two witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3 and Ex.D1 and Ex.D1(a) were marked on behalf of the defendant.
6. Heard the arguments of plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff relied on Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments in Civil Appeal No.5262/2023 and No.4171/2024, emphasizing the presumption of liability for signed cheques.
7. The defendant cited following citations to argue that the plaintiff failed to prove the loan transactions and unregistered Agreements are inadmissible:-
1. AIR 1941 Allahabad 158 (Pandit Sushil Chander Chaturvedi vs Wali Ullah and others)
2. AIR 1953 SC 225 (Hiralal and others vs Badkulal and others)
3. AIR 1970 SC 1420 (Kaloji Talusappa Gangavathi vs Khyanagouda and others)
4. AIR 1992 MADRAS 346 (Kadarkarai Reddiar vs Arumugam Nadar)
5. Judgment passed by the New Delhi District Court in CC No.10294/2019 (Ms.Sheela Arora vs Smt. Saroj Wati) 9 O.S. No.1015/2020
6. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5200/2025 (The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs B.Gunashekar and another)
7. AIR 2006 Karnataka 88 (Canara Bank vs Vara Trading Co. and others)
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the negative.
Issue No.4: In the negative.
Issue No.5: In the affirmative.
Issue No.6: As per final order below
for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: - The plaintiff relies on Ex.P10 - Loan Agreement dated 26.12.2015, which bears defendant's signature at Ex.P.10(a) and plaintiff's signature at Ex.P10(b).
The agreement acknowledges receipt of ₹20,00,000/- in cash and the delivery of registered sale deed at Ex.P1 as security, with interest rate at 24% per annum.
10 O.S. No.1015/2020
10. The plaintiff's testimony/PW-1 is consistent, stating that she arranged ₹20,00,000/- from her saree business, from her husband and others. She produced Ex.P1 - original sale deed, corroborating her claim that it was given as security.
11. The defendant denies the loan, alleging that Ex.P10 was created using blank e-stamp papers signed for chit transactions. She claims that Ex.P1 was lost and complaint is lodged as per Ex.D1 in this regard, but Ex.D1 is a downloaded copy, marked subject to objection and lacks specificity about the lost document. The defendant's claim that, she informed the police in 2019 about the loss is inconsistent with her possession of Ex.P1 by the plaintiff.
12. The defendant's witnesses - DW-2, DW-3 allege that the plaintiff running chit fund, but provide no documentary evidence. Their testimonies are vague and lack specifics about the chit transactions.
13. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cited by the plaintiff, does not directly apply as Ex.P10 is not a 11 O.S. No.1015/2020 negotiable instrument, but a Loan Agreement. However, the principle of presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act as cited in Civil Appeal No.5262/2023 supports the plaintiff's case, as the defendant's signatures on Ex.P10 and Ex.P1(a) raise a presumption of valid transaction unless rebutted by cogent evidence.
14. The defendant's defense is unsupported by evidence beyond her oral testimony and Ex.D1, which is unreliable. The plaintiff's possession of Ex.P1 and the specific details in Ex.P10 outweigh the defendant's bare denials. The plaintiff has proved that the defendant executed the Loan Agreement dated 26.12.2015 and received ₹20,00,000/-. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
15. Issue No.2: - The plaintiff relies on Ex.P11 - Loan Agreement dated 30.03.2016 and 10.04.2016, bearing the defendant's signatures at Ex.P11(a), Ex.P11(b) and the plaintiff's signature at Ex.P11(c). It acknowledges receipt of 12 O.S. No.1015/2020 ₹10,00,000/- in cash, secured by two undated cheques at Ex.P8 and Ex.P9.
16. The plaintiff's testimony states that, she sourced ₹10,00,000/- from lease proceeds and paid it in cash on 10.04.2016. The agreement mentions interest rate at 24% per annum, later corrected to 2% per month.
17. The defendant denies the loan, alleging that Ex.P11 was fabricated using blank e-stamp papers. She claims that the cheques at Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 were given for chit transactions or share investments through Kariappa. However, DW.3- Smt.Anupama G.L. denies her signature on Ex.P11 and no evidence supports the defendant's claim about Kariappa or chit transactions.
18. The defendant's failure to produce bank records or other documents to rebut the plaintiff's claims weakens her defense. The plaintiff's consistent testimony and possession of 13 O.S. No.1015/2020 Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, bearing defendant's signatures, support her case.
19. Civil Appeal No.4171/2024 emphasizes that the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt when signatures are admitted. The defendant's vague denials and lack of evidence fail to discharge this burden. The plaintiff has proved that the defendant executed the Loan Agreements dated 30.03.2016 and 10.04.2016 and received ₹10,00,000/-. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.3: - The defendant alleges that the plaintiff obtained her signatures on blank e-stamp papers and cheques for chit transactions, which were misused to create Ex.P10, Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. She also claims that the cheques at Ex.P3 to Ex.P9 were blank when given.
21. The defendant's evidence / DW-1, DW-2, DW-3 is limited to oral testimony. Ex.D1 - Lost Article Report is unreliable due to its late filing in 2019 and lack of specificity. 14 O.S. No.1015/2020 The defendant admitted her signature on Ex.P1(a), but claimed confusion about other signatures, undermining her credibility. DW-2 and DW-3 allege that the plaintiff running a chit fund, but provide no records of their participation or the defendant's. Their testimonies are inconsistent and lack corroboration.
22. The plaintiff denies running a chit fund and provides specific details about the loan transactions, supported by Ex.P1, Ex.P3 to Ex.P9, and Ex.P10 to Ex.P12, all bearing defendant's signatures.
23. The defendant's citations reported in AIR 1953 SC 225, AIR 2006 Karnataka 88 require the plaintiff to prove the debt's existence, which she has done through documentary evidence. The defendant's failure to produce cogent evidence shifts the balance in the plaintiff's favour. The defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff took her signatures on blank e- stamp papers and cheques. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered in the negative.
15 O.S. No.1015/2020
24. Issue No.4: - The defendant argues that Ex.P10, Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 are invalid as they are unregistered and not properly stamped. She cites cases like AIR 1941 Allahabad 158 and AIR 1992 Madras 346, which deal with the admissibility of unregistered documents.
25. Under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, Loan Agreements do not require mandatory registration unless they create an interest in immovable property. Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 are Agreements acknowledging debt and do not create a charge on the schedule property, as the sale deed at Ex.P1 was given as security, not transferred.
26. Regarding stamping, the Agreements are on e-stamp papers and the defendant has not proved any deficiency under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The plaintiff's possession of the original sale deed at Ex.P1 and cheques at Ex.P3 to Ex.P9 corroborates their authenticity.
27. The defendant's reliance on unregistered documents being inadmissible is misplaced, as Section 49 of the 16 O.S. No.1015/2020 Registration Act allows unregistered documents to be used as evidence of collateral transaction i.e., debt acknowledgment. The defendant has failed to prove that the Loan Agreements are invalid. Hence, Issue No.4 is answered in the negative.
28. Issue No.5:- The plaintiff claims interest at 18% per annum from 01.07.2017, based on Ex.P12, which acknowledges the debt of ₹30,00,000/- and agrees to 18% interest. The plaintiff's testimony confirms the defendant paid interest at 24% until December 2016 and at 18% until June 2017.
29. The defendant denies liability, but admits paying ₹40,000/- monthly as interest until February 2017 in DW-1 cross-examination, indirectly supporting plaintiff's claim of loan transaction.
30. The Agreement in Ex.P12 is enforceable under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, as it is a written promise to pay the debt. The plaintiff's calculation of interest of 17 O.S. No.1015/2020 ₹13,95,000/- from 01.07.2017 to 31.01.2020 is mathematically correct at 18% per annum on ₹30,00,000/-.
31. The defendant's failure to repay the principal or interest after June 2017 entitles the plaintiff to claim interest as agreed. Section 34 of the CPC allows the court to award interest at a reasonable rate post-suit until realization and 18% is reasonable given the agreement. The plaintiff is entitled to interest at 18% per annum on ₹30,00,000/- from 01.07.2017 to 05.02.2020 and thereafter until realization. Hence, Issue No.5 is answered in the affirmative.
32. Issue No.6: - Based on the findings above, the plaintiff has proved the loan transactions of ₹20,00,000/- and ₹10,00,000/-, supported by Ex.P10, Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 and the defendant's failure to repay. The plaintiff is entitled to recover ₹43,95,000/- (principal ₹30,00,000/- + interest ₹13,95,000/-) with further interest at 6% per annum from 06.02.2020 until realization.
18 O.S. No.1015/2020
33. Regarding the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff's evidence about the defendant's attempt to sell the schedule property in January 2020 is hearsay, lacking corroboration. The plaintiff holds Ex.P.1 as security, reducing the risk of alienation. Hence, the prayer for the relief of permanent injunction is not justified.
34. The defendant's citations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e., AIR 1970 SC 1420 on jurisdiction and court fee are irrelevant, as the suit is filed in Bengaluru, where the cause of action arose and the court fee is adequately paid.
35. The plaintiff is entitled to costs under Section 35 of the CPC, given the defendant's false denials and frivolous defense, which prolonged the litigation. Hence, this court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. 19 O.S. No.1015/2020 The defendant shall pay the plaintiff, a sum of ₹43,95,000/- (Rupees Forty-Three Lakhs Ninety- Five Thousand Only) with interest at 6% per annum on ₹30,00,000/- from 06.02.2020 until the date of realization.
The prayer for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or creating a charge over the schedule property is dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 8th day of October, 2025) (B.DASARATHA) XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
PW.1 : Smt. Lakshmi K. 20 O.S. No.1015/2020 List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P1 : Original Sale Deed dated 21.01.2013 Ex.P2 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P3 to 9 : Cheques Ex.P10 : Loan Agreement dated 26.12.2015 Ex.P10(a) : Signature of defendant Ex.P10(b) : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P11 : Loan Agreement dated 30.03.2016 and 10.04.2016 Ex.P.11(a & b): Signatures of Defendant Ex.P.11(c) : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P.12 : Agreement cum Acknowledgment of Debt Ex.P.12(a) : Signatures of Defendant Ex.P.12(b) : Signature of PW-1 List of witnesses examined for defendant:
DW.1 : Smt. Vasanth Yogesh
DW.2 : Smt. Mahadevi R.
DW.3 : Smt. Anupama G.L.
List of documents exhibited for defendant:
Ex.D.1 : Downloaded copy of Lost Article Report Ex.D.1(a) : Certificate under Sec. 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyama, 2023 XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally signed by DASARATHA
DASARATHA BETTAPPA
BETTAPPA Date:
2025.10.09
13:20:05
+0530