Bangalore District Court
Smt. R. Gowri vs Sri. Murthy Reddy on 14 February, 2023
1 Com.O.S.No.346/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL COURT):
BENGALURU CITY. (CCH-89)
Present: Sri. P.J. SOMASHEKARA, B.A.,LL.M,
LXXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 14th day of February 2023
Com.OS.No.346/2022
Plaintiff: 1. Smt. R. Gowri,
W/o late J. Chandran,
Aged about 56 years,
2. Sathish C., S/o late J. Chandran,
Aged about 38 years,
3. Santhosh C., S/o late J. Chandran,
Aged about 36 years,
All are R/at No.90/4, 2nd Main Road,
13th Cross, Rudrappa Garden,
Bengaluru - 560 026.
(By Sri. A.K., Advocate)
-vs-
Defendant : 1. Sri. Murthy Reddy, S/o Rangaswamy,
Major in Age,
2. Smt. Chandrakantha,
W/o Murthy Reddy,
2 Com.O.S.No.346/2022
Major in Age,
Both are together R/at No.7,
Khatha No.7/1, PID No.54-157-7/1,
BBMP Ward No.164, EWS Layout,
5th A Cross, 6th A Main, Kathriguppe
East, BSK III Stage, Bengaluru - 85.
(By Sri. M.V.P., Advocate)
Nature of the suit Money suit
Date of institution of the 02.03.2022
suit
Date of commencement 09.06.2022
of recording of the
evidence
Date on which the 14.02.2023
judgment was
pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
0 11 12
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for recovery of Rs.9,90,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization.
2. Nutshell of the plaintiff's case are as under:
The plaintiffs in their plaint they were alleged that the defendants were approached the husband of the 1 st plaintiff and father of the plaintiff No.2 and 3 namely J. Chandran, on 3 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 30.01.2018 for financial assistance in order to clear their bank loan and borrowed hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- executing hand loan agreement dated 30.01.2018 agreeing to repay the same together with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. within a year there from i.e., on or before 30.01.2019. The 2 nd defendant had deposited with J. Chandran the original documents of the title deeds of her house property bearing No.1, Old No.7, Khatha No.7/1, Kathriguppe village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring East to West 20 feet, North to South 30 feet, in total 600 Sq.ft. to secure the hand loan availed by the defendants, thereby the 2nd defendant has executed equitable mortgage of the said property which is more fully described in the schedule, apart from the 1st defendant has deposited a cheque bearing No.165748 duly signed by him drawn on Andhra Bank, Vidyapeeth Branch, Bangalore for prompt payment of the said loan, subsequently both the defendants again approached the said J. Chandran to give further loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.03.2018, considering the request of the defendants the said J. Chandran again paid a 4 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendants by way of cash and both defendants have acknowledged the receipt of the said amount by writing shara on the said hand loan agreement dated 30.01.2018, however both the defendants failed to pay the said loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest thereon as agreed in spite of repeated request and demand.
3. The plaintiffs in their plaint they further alleged that at the request of the defendants presented the cheque for sum of Rs.6,50,000/- which includes principal amount and interest accrued thereon promising and assuring the said cheque will be duly honoured by their banker, accordingly the said cheque has been presented for encashment on 14.02.2019 by the said J. Chandran through his banker Federal Bank Ltd., BSK Branch, Bengaluru but the same has been dishonoured for the reason payment stopped by the drawer, subsequently the said J. Chandran got issued legal notice on 21.02.2019 calling upon the 1st defendant to pay the said cheque amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and the said legal notice has been duly received by the defendants but both the defendants neither replied the said legal notice nor complied the demands 5 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 therein, as such J. Chandran has constrained to file the private complaint in C.C.No.2124/2019 on the file of the 37 th ACJM Court, Bangalore City SCH-8 and in the said case the 1 st defendant entered appearance through his counsel and filed the joint memo dated 14.09.2019 agreeing to pay the said cheque amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in 3 installments to the said J. Chandran, accordingly an award has been passed by the court in lok adalath held on 14.09.2019 directing the 1 st defendant to pay the said cheque amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in 3 installments as agreed by the 1st defendant in the joint memo filed therein. The 1st defendant miserably failed to pay the said sum of Rs.6,50,000/- in spite of award passed in C.C.No.2124/2019 and in spite of repeated request and demand made by the J. Chandran to pay the said award amount of Rs.6,50,000/- thereby execution No.184/2020 has been filed on the file of the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore SCH-8 to execute the award and in the said execution, the 1 st defendant has been appeared through his counsel and sought time for payment of the award amount, but no 6 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 amount has been paid by the 1 st defendant to the said J. Chandran.
4. The plaintiffs in their plaint they further alleged that in the mean time, the said J. Chandran was died on 30.07.2021 leaving behind them as his legal heirs and successor and they succeeded his estate including the amounts borrowed by both the defendants under the said loan agreement dated 30.01.2018. As such they came on record as LR's of J. Chandran in the execution petition, since both the defendants have not paid the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. as agreed by them as per the loan agreement dated 30.01.2018. Both the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the due amount of Rs.9,90,000/- but in spite of demand, personal approaches, the defendants have been evading to clear the said loan amount and they are legally liable to pay the said amount and they were entitle to receive the said amount from the defendants and their all efforts went in vain for recovery of the said loan amount, in spite of repeated reminders, requests and approaches and the defendants 7 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 were purposefully evading the payment on or the other pretext in order to defraud their claim, thereby they have no other go except to issue legal notice, thereby they got issued legal notice on 14.02.2022 through RPAD calling upon them for payment of the due amount though the legal notice has been served on the defendants but they did not clear the due amount. The cause of the action for the suit which arose from 30.01.2018 and 03.03.2018 when the defendants availed the loan amount and on 30.01.2018 when the defendants executed the hand loan agreement on 21.02.2019, when the said J. Chandran got issued a legal notice on 14.02.2022 to the defendants within the jurisdiction of this court and prays for decree the suit.
5. In response of the suit summons, the defendants were appeared through their respective counsel and filed their independent written statement. The defendant No.1 in his written statement has alleged the suit which filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in law or on facts and denied the para No.3 of the plaint and the plaintiff has to strict proof of the same and also denied the para No.4 of the plaint and 8 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 the plaintiff has to strict proof of the same and alleged one J. Chandran taken the blank cheque from him and same has been presented his bank and filed the case against him and denied the averments made in para No.5 of the plaint stating that the facts which pleaded in para No.5 are false and incorrect and one J. Chandran filed the case against him and same was came to be registered in C.C.No.2124/2019, thereafter J. Chandran passed away and they were no way connected to the said J. Chandran, thereby the suit which filed is not maintainable which is deserved for dismissal and denied the averments made in para No.6 of the plaint and they were alleged that the CC. No.2124/2019 was came to be filed by the J. Chandran thereafter the said J. Chandran died during pendency of the Ex.Pt.NO..184/2020. After the death of J. Chandran, these plaintiffs said to be the legal heirs were filed the instant suit which is not maintainable, deserved for dismissal and denied the para No.7 of the plaint stating that they have not executed any hand loan agreement dated 30.01.2018 in favour of J. Chandran and the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of the J. Chandran, the suit which filed by the 9 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 plaintiffs is not maintainable and denied the para No.8 of the plaint and denied that they have taken the loan from the plaintiffs and executed hand loan agreement and they are liable to pay the claim of the plaintiff.
6. The defendant No.1 in his written statement has further denied the para No.9 of the plaint and the plaintiff has to strict proof of the same and denied that the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of the deceased J. Chandran and he has alleged that after the death of J. Chandran the plaintiffs have brought on record as legal heirs and they were alleged that the defendant No.1 has not executed any hand loan agreement to the plaintiffs and J. Chandran filed the execution petition against them which is pending for consideration and the instant suit is deserved for dismissal and denied the cause of action which alleged by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have to strict proof of the same and denied the averments made in para No.12 of the plaint stating that the facts which pleaded are false and incorrect and the plaintiffs have to strict proof of the same and they were admitted the plaintiffs were filed the execution petition 10 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 before the Addl. Small Causes Court, Bangalore which is pending for consideration and the instant suit which filed is not maintainable deserved for dismissal and prays for dismiss the suit.
7. The defendant No.2 in her written statement has alleged the suit which filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in law or on facts and the plaintiffs have filed the instant false suit against them for wrongful gain and the plaintiffs have to strict proof of the same and denied the para No.2 of the plaint and she has stated that she has not issued any cheque to the plaintiffs nor executed any documents in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have made false claim against her which is deserved for dismissal and denied the para No.5 to 7 of the plaint and the plaintiffs have to strict proof of the same and she has alleged that the private complaint has been filed by J. Chandran against the defendant No.1 and she is not party to the said case and she has noway concerned to the C.C.No.2124/2019 which filed against the defendant No.1 by the deceased J. Chandran and she is no way concerned to the criminal case which already 11 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 decided by the said court. So the suit which filed by the plaintiffs is deserved for dismissal and she has not executed any hand loan agreement. Therefore, she is not liable to pay any amount as sought by the plaintiffs and denied the para No.8 to 10 of the plaint stating that the plaintiffs have to strict proof of the same and she has stated that she has not taken any loan from the plaintiffs nor from the deceased J. Chandran and the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of the deceased J. Chandran. So, the suit which filed is not maintainable and the facts which pleaded in para No.9 are totally false and incorrect and she never executed any hand loan agreement to the plaintiffs and the matter is pending before Small Causes Court, Bangalore, therefore the present suit is not maintainable.
8. The defendant No.2 in the written statement has alleged that there is no cause of action to file the suit against her, since she has not executed alleged loan agreement dated 30.01.2018 as alleged by the plaintiffs and the same is barred by limitation and the suit is not maintainable which is deserved for dismissal and denied the averments made in 12 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 para No.12 of the plaint and the plaintiffs have to strict proof of the same and the matter is already pending before the Small Causes Court, Bangalore and this court has no jurisdiction either to receive the suit nor to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute and there is no commercial transaction in between the parties, the document which filed by the plaintiffs in respect of hand loan agreement between J. Chandran and the defendants and the claim of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. The suit which filed is deserved for dismissal and prays for dismiss the suit.
9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Does the plaintiffs are proves that the J.
Chandran is none other than the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiff No.2 and 3?
2. Does the plaintiffs are proves that the defendants have availed hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- as per loan agreement on 30.01.2018 from the J. Chandran?
3. Does the plaintiffs are proves that the defendants have further availed hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.03.2018 from J.
Chandran?
13 Com.O.S.No.346/2022
4. Does the plaintiffs are proves that the J. Chandran was died on 30.07.2021 leaving behind them as legal heirs?
5. Does the plaintiffs are proves that the defendants were refused to pay the due amount?
6.Does the plaintiff are entitled for the relief as prayed for?
7. What order or decree?
10. The plaintiff in order to prove the plaint averments, the plaintiff No.2 has examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to P.35 and the plaintiffs have not examined any witness on their behalf. The defendants have not led any evidence nor marked any documents or examined any witness on their behalf.
11. Heard the arguments on the plaintiffs side and taken as no arguments on the defendants side.
12. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative;
Issue No.3: In the Affirmative;
Issue No.4: In the Affirmative;14 Com.O.S.No.346/2022
Issue No.5: In the Affirmative;
Issue No.6: In the Affirmative;
Issue No.7: As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
13. ISSUE NO.1 to 3: These issues are interrelated to each other, hence in order to avoid the repetition of facts and materials on record, these issues are discussed together. The plaintiffs said to be the legal heirs of the deceased J. Chandran were approached the court on the ground that the defendants have approached one J. Chandran who is none other than the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiff No.2 & 3 for financial assistance in order to clear the bank loan for which J. Chandran had paid Rs.2,00,000/- for which executed the hand loan agreement by agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a. and also executed the equitable mortgage of the schedule property as a security of the said amount and also issued a cheque towards security of the said loan and thereafter again availed a loan of Rs.3 lakhs and endorsed on the very document in total received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- but in spite of repeated request and demand did not repay the loan amount 15 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 with interest nor discharged the equitable mortgage, thereby got issued legal notice calling upon them to clear the due amount but they did not do so instead assured to present the cheque for collection it would be honoured on the assurance presented the cheque which was came to be dishonoured and criminal case has been filed which was ended with compromise but they did not clear the said amount, thereby the plaintiffs have filed the instant suit against the defendants.
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs while canvasing his arguments has submitted that one J. Chandran who is none other than the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 & 3 approached the said J. Chandran on 30.01.2018 for financial assistance in order to clear their bank loan which borrowed, accordingly availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by executing hand loan agreement dated 30.01.2018 agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a. and also deposited the title deeds in respect of the house property and also executed equitable mortgage of the schedule property and also deposited the 16 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 cheque and again approached the J. Chandran requesting Rs.3,00,000/- and the said J. Chandran again paid Rs.3,00,000/- for which they endorsed on the very document and they received in total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in spite of demand they did not come forward to clear the due amount, instead they assured to present the cheque it would be honoured, accordingly cheque has been presented it was came to be dishonoured, criminal case has been filed which was ended with compromise but they did not clear the said amount in spite of settlement nor the execution, thereby the plaintiff got issued legal notice calling upon them for payment of the due amount but they did not do so, thereby the plaintiffs have no other go except to file the instant suit against the defendants. Though the defendants in response of the suit summons, were appeared through their respective counsel and filed the written statement but the reasons best known to them they did not enter the witness box nor offer for cross-examination to prove their defence. On the other hand the plaintiffs have proved their case through oral and documentary evidence and prays for decree the suit. 17 Com.O.S.No.346/2022
15. The plaintiffs in order to prove the plaint averments the plaintiff No.2 has filed his affidavit as his chief examination by reiterating the plaint averments stating that one J. Chandran is none other than his father and father of the plaintiff No.3 and husband of the plaintiff No.1. The defendants have approached his father on 30.01.2018 for financial assistance in order to clear the bank loan which borrowed by them, accordingly availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by executing hand loan agreement dated 30.01.2018 by agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a. within a year and the 2nd defendant deposited original documents of title deeds of her house property and also executed equitable mortgage of the schedule property. Apart from the cheque bearing No.165748 duly signed by him drawn on Andhra Bank and again approached his father for Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.03.2018. Considering the request of the defendants his father had again paid Rs.3,00,000/- for which the defendants have endorsed on the hand loan agreement dated 30.01.2018 in total his father had paid Rs.5,00,000/- but in spite of repeated request and demand, the defendants 18 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 did not come forward to clear the loan amount instead requested to present the cheque for Rs.6,50,000/- though cheque was presented it was dishonoured, criminal case has been filed against the defendant No.1 which was ended with compromise though execution petition has filed but the defendants did not come forward to clear the said due amount thereby got issued legal notice calling upon the defendants to clear the amount which involved in the hand loan agreement dated 30.01.2018 and the equitable mortgage but they did not do so thereby they have filed the instant suit against the defendants.
16. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted during the life time of his father had field the criminal case against the defendants and denied one Murthy Reddy was not party to the said loan agreement but he has stated that Murthy Reddy has signed the agreement and denied himself and other plaintiffs who are not the legal heirs of the deceased J. Chandran and the defendant No.2 was not the party to the 138 of NI Act proceedings and admitted at the time of filing of the suit they have not produced the Ex.P.35 19 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 and the plaintiff No.1 and 3 have not executed GPA in his favour and denied the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable against the defendants and the signature which appeared in Ex.P.9 is not belongs to father and himself and other plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of the deceased and denied that they have filed false suit against the defendants. It is an admitted fact the defendants did not enter the witness box nor offer for cross-examination, except filing of the written statement.
17. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs while canvassing his arguments has submitted the plaintiffs who are none other than the legal heirs of the deceased J. Chandran and the plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the deceased and the plaintiff No.2 and 3 are none other than the sons of J. Chandran and the plaintiff No.1 and the defendants were availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- as per the loan agreement on 30.01.2018 for which they have executed equitable mortgage deed in favour of J. Chandran by depositing the title deeds of the house property and they have also availed hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.03.2018 from J. Chandran. It 20 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 is an admitted fact the learned counsel for the defendants while cross-examination of the P.W.1 has not suggested anything regarding the loan agreement on 30.01.2018 nor the equitable mortgage which executed by the defendants in favour of the deceased as the Ex.P.1 is the hand loan agreement dated 30.01.2018 which executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the deceased clearly reflects the defendant No.1 is the first party and the deceased J. Chandran being the 2nd party availed the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by depositing the title deeds by executing equitable mortgage and also availed Rs.3,00,000/- by endorsing on the very document on 03.03.2018 by agreeing to repay the said loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. Ex.P.2 to P.5 are clear that the defendant No.2 has deposited the title deeds for availment of the said loan by equitable mortgage and Ex.P.6 to P.9 are the documents relating to the equitable mortgage property. So, Ex.P.2 to P.9 are clear about the availment of the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the deceased J. Chandran, the defendants were not only executed hand loan agreement but also deposited title deeds 21 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 by way of equitable mortgage. Ex.P.31 is the legal notice which issued by the very plaintiffs to the defendants stating that they are the legal heirs and calling upon the defendants for payment of the due amount and the said notice have been served on the defendant No.1 and 2 as per Ex.P.33 and P.34 and Ex.P.35 is the family tree affidavit reflects the plaintiff No.1 is none other than the wife of deceased J. Chandran and the plaintiff No.2 and 3 are none other than the children of the deceased J. Chandran and the plaintiff No.1. Though the defendants in their written statement have denied the relationship of the plaintiffs with the J. Chandran but nothing has been placed on record to show that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of the deceased J. Chandran but the Ex.P.31 to P.35 are very much clear the plaintiff No.1 is none other than wife of the J. Chandran and the plaintiff No.2 and 3 are none other the children of the deceased J. Chandran and the plaintiff No.1. Though the defendants were denied the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased but they did not enter the witness nor offer cross-examination or placed any materials to rebut the Ex.P.31 to P.35 which on 22 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 record. So, the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to P35 are very much clear that the plaintiff No.1 is none other than wife of the deceased and the plaintiff No.2 and 3 are none other than the children of deceased J. Chandran and the plaintiff No.1.
18. It is an admitted fact the plaintiffs in their plaint they were clearly stated that the defendants were availed hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- as per the loan agreement dated 30.01.2018 and also availed Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.03.2018 by endorsing on the very document. In total they have received Rs.5,00,000/- from the deceased J. Chandran. Ex.P.1 is the hand loan agreement which clearly reflects that the defendants were availed hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 30.01.2018 and received Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.03.2018 by endorsing on the Ex.P.1 and moreover the cheque which issued by the defendant No.1 was came to be dishonoured on presentation and the criminal case has been filed which was ended with compromise as per Ex.P.20 to P.29. If at all the defendants were not availed either loan of Rs.2,00,000/- nor Rs.3,00,000/- in total Rs.5,00,000/- question of issue of 23 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 cheque of Rs.6,50,000/- towards the discharge of legally recoverable debt does not arise and Ex.P.20 to 29 are very much clear that the cheque was dishonoured and the criminal case was came to be filed which was ended with compromise, that itself is clear the defendants were availed not only Rs.2,00,000/- but also Rs.3,00,000/- in total Rs.5,00,000/- from the deceased to discharge legally recoverable debt cheque has been issued by the defendant No.1, that is the reason why that matter ended with compromise. Therefore, the Ex.P.20 to 29 are coupled with the oral evidence of P.W.1. So one thing is clear from the oral and documentary evidence that the plaintiff No.1 is none other than wife of the deceased J. Chandran and the plaintiff No.2 and 3 are none other than their children and the defendants were availed Rs.2,00,000/- on 30.01.2018 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.03.2018, thereby they have executed hand loan agreement and deposited the title deeds by way of equitable mortgage. Hence, I am of the opinion that the issue No.1 to 3 are answered as Affirmative.
24 Com.O.S.No.346/2022
19. ISSUE NO.4 TO 6: These issues are interrelated to each other, hence in order to repetition of facts and materials on record these issues are discussed together. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs while canvassing his arguments has submitted the deceased J. Chandran was died non 30.07.2021 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and the defendants were refused to pay the amount, thereby the plaintiffs have no other go to calling upon the defendants for payment of the due amount through legal notice, though legal notice has been served on them but they did not come forward to pay the due amount. Thereby the plaintiffs have filed the instant suit against the defendants.
20. It is admitted fact in response of the suit summons, the defendant No.1 and 2 were appeared through their respective counsel and filed the written statement in which the defendant No.1 and 2 not only denied the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased J. Chandran but also denied for execution of the documents and availment of Rs.5,00,000/- from the deceased J. Chandran, but whereas the documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to P.19 and P.22 25 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 to 35 are very much clear the defendants were approached the deceased and availed Rs.2,00,000/- on 30.01.2018 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.03.2018 for which they have executed Ex.P.1 in favour of the deceased and they have also deposited the title deeds by way of equitable mortgage. If at all they have not availed the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the deceased question of depositing of the title deeds by way of equitable mortgage does not arise. If at all the defendants were not availed the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- by depositing of title deeds by way of equitable mortgage in response of the notice they would have reply to the legal notice which issued by the plaintiffs, but the reasons best known to the defendants in spite of service of legal notice they did not come forward either to clear the due amount nor deny the contents which appeared in the legal notice marked as Ex.P.31. So, non denial of contents of Ex.P.31 after service of the notice as per Ex.P.33 and P.34 it is clear the defendants were refused to pay the due amount and the plaintiffs who are none other than the legal heirs of the deceased and J. Chandran was died on 30.07.2021 leaving behind the 26 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Now the question arises whether mere filing of the written statement by the defendants is sufficient to held that the contents which taken in written statement is correct. Thus this court drawn its attention on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 in between Vidhyadhar Vs Manikrao. In the above said judgment their lord ship held that if the defendants did not enter the witness box nor offer for cross- examination court can draw adverse inference that the defence which taken in the written statement is not correct.
21. In the instant case, except filing of the written statement the defendants did not enter the witness box nor offer for cross-examination. That is the reason why their lordship held that without entering the witness box nor offer for cross-examination whatever the contention which taken in the written statement is not correct. Therefore, except denial of the contents of the plaint by the defendants nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the same. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have proved their case through oral 27 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 and documentary evidence. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Issue No.4 to 6 are answered as Affirmative.
22. Issue No.6: In view of my findings to the issue No.1 to 6 as stated above I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with cost. The defendants are hereby directed to pay the decretal amount of Rs.9,90,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, thereof corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of February, 2023) (P.J. Somashekara) LXXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive Commercial Court), Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:
P.W.1 Satish C. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant:
D.W.1 NIl List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff: 28 Com.O.S.No.346/2022
Ex.P.1 Hand loan agreement dt:30.01.2018 Ex.P.2 Original sale deed dt:27.07.2001 Ex.P.3 Original sale deed dt:26.12.2003 Ex.P.4 Khatha certificate Ex.P.5 Khatha Extract Ex.P.6 Certificate issued by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Ex.P.7 Khatha Registration issued by the Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore Ex.P.8 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.9 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.10 Certified copy of the hand loan agreement dt:30.01.2018 Ex.P.11 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 27.07.2001 Ex.P.12 Certified copy of the sale deed dt:26.12.2003 Ex.P.13 Certified copy of the Khatha Certificate Ex.P.14 Certified copy of the Khatha Extract Ex.P.15 Certified copy of the certificate issued by the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Ex.P.16 Certified copy of the Khatha Registration Ex.P.17 Certified copy of the Khatha Extract Ex.P.18 Certified copy of the Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.19 Certified copy of the Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.20 Certified copy of the cheque for Rs.6,50,000/-
Ex.P.21 Certified copy of the Bank endorsement Ex.P.22 Certified copy of the legal notice 29 Com.O.S.No.346/2022 dt:21.02.2019 Ex.P.23 Certified copy of the Postal receipt and acknowledgment Ex.p.24 Certified copy of the private complaint filed U/Sec.200 of Cr.PC Ex.P.25 Certified copy of the joint memo Ex.P.26 Certified copy of the award Ex.P.27 Certified copy of the EP 184/2020 Ex.P.28 Certified copy of the affidavit filed in Execution No.184/2020 Ex.P.29 Certified copy of the verifying affidavit filed in Ex.P.No.184/2020 Ex.P.30 Certified copy of the Death certificate Ex.P.31 Copy of the legal notice dt:14.02.2022 Ex.P.32 Postal receipts in 2 Nos.
Ex.P.33 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.34 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.35 Certified copy of the Family tree affidavit
containing 2 pages
List of documents exhibited on behalf of
defendant:
NIL
(P.J. Somashekara)
LXXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive Commercial Court), Bengaluru City