Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sharadamma vs Sri. Keshavashetty on 12 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1822 OF 2018 (MON)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SHARADAMMA
W/O LATE SRI RAJASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
2. H R JITHENDRA
S/O LATE SRI RAJASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. H R VISHWANATHA
S/O LATE SRI RAJASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
OPP DHARMASHREE SAMUDAYA
BHAVANA, 2ND CROSS
V.V.NAGAR, KALLAHALLI
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.VINAY M, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI. KESHAVASHETTY
S/O C HANUMANTHASHETTY
2
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NO.50, 1ST CROSS
V.V.NAGARA, KALLAHALLI
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
.....RESPONDENT
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 31.01.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.82/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, MANDYA ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.05.2013
PASSED IN O.S.NO.108/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA AND ETC.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful defendants questioning the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court wherein plaintiff's suit is decreed by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the defendants with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for recovery of money of Rs.1,72,550/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The plaintiff claimed that the husband of defendant No.1 namely Rajashekharaiah borrowed hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.02.2006 and agreed to repay the amount with interest. The plaintiff also claims that defendants on receipt of money executed a demand pronote and consideration receipt having availed loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. The plaintiff claims that husband of defendant No.1 having availed loan did not repay during his lifetime. After the death of husband of defendant No.1, plaintiff made several demands requesting them to repay the loan amount. Hence, he was compelled to issue notice to the defendants on 02.02.2009. The plaintiff's grievance is that neither defendants repaid the amount nor replied to the legal notice. Hence, the present suit is filed seeking recovery of money.
4
4. The defendants on receipt of summons contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The defendants stoutly denied the alleged transaction and claimed that the deceased Rajashekharaiah has not at all borrowed any loan from plaintiff. The defendants also contended that plaintiff is into money lending business without a license and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. The defendants also contended that they have not succeeded to the estate of the deceased and defendant No.1 is only receiving pension. On these set of defence sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. The plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined himself as P.W.1 and two witnesses are examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and adduced documentary evidence as Exs.P.1 to 8, while defendants to counter the claim of the plaintiff have lead in oral evidence of two witnesses, who are examined as D.Ws.1 and 2. The defendants, however, have not chosen to produce any documentary evidence. 5
6. The Trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit by holding that in absence of proof of defendants having succeeded to the estate of the deceased, the plaintiff cannot enforce recovery of money against the legal heirs of the deceased Rajashekharaiah. The Trial Court drew adverse inference by taking note of the few admissions tendered by the plaintiff in cross-examination, wherein he has admitted that he has filed similar suits seeking recovery. Therefore, Trial Court was of the view that plaintiff has lent money to several people without securing a license as contemplated under law. On these two grounds, the suit is dismissed.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having independently assessed the oral and documentary evidence, however, was of the view that defendants have inherited the estate of the deceased. This finding is recorded by the Appellate Court by taking note of the 6 admissions elicited by the plaintiff in cross-examination of defendants. The defendants have admitted in unequivocal terms that they have inherited an agricultural land measuring 1.5 acres, which is situated in Hulivana Village belonging to the deceased Rajashekharaiah. Therefore, the Appellate Court was of the view that this admission is not a stray admission. On the contrary, the Appellate Court was of the view that this admission clinches the entire controversy between the parties. It is in this background, the Appellate Court was of the view that defendants, who have succeeded to the estate of the deceased, are under obligation to discharge the debts. On these set of reasonings, the Appellate Court has reversed the conclusions and findings recorded by the Trial Court. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed with interest at the rate of 18% p.m. These divergent findings are under challenge at the instance of the defendants.
7
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the defendants. Perused the divergent judgments rendered by the Courts below.
9. The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is;
As to whether defendants, who were legal heirs of the deceased Rajashekaraiah, have succeeded to the estate of the deceased?
10. It is a trite law that in regard to liability of heir of the deceased Hindu to pay debts of the deceased, the legal heirs are only liable to the extent of assets inherited by them from the deceased. Though the legal heirs are not personally liable to pay the debts of the deceased, if they have succeeded to the estate of the deceased, then inheritance to the estate is subject to liability. Therefore, the legal heirs cannot conveniently disown the liability while assets are inherited in the estate of the deceased. 8
11. Now, let me examine the materials on record. Before I proceed to take note of the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of the defendants, it is also useful for this Court to take note of the pleadings at para No.10 of the written statement. Para No.10 of the written statement would clinch the entire controversy between the parties coupled with the admissions elicited in cross- examination of the defendants. Para No.10 of the written statement reads as under;
"10. The defendants respectfully submit that after the death of deceased Rajashekharaiah, they are maintaining themselves only out of the pension amount that is being received by the defendant No.1. Except this pension amount, the defendants have absolutely no other source of income for their living and therefore, they are not liable to pay the alleged suit claim by the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed since the same is based only on forged and concocted document."9
12. At para No.10 of the written statement, the defendants have stated that they are maintaining themselves out of the pension amount being received by defendant No.1. This clearly establishes that the deceased was duly employed and after his death, defendant No.1, who is the widow, is receiving family pension. Apart from these pleadings in the written statement, the widow has also admitted that they have succeeded to the estate of the deceased Rajashekaraiah, which is an agricultural land measuring 1.5 acres. If these two significant details are taken into consideration, then I am of the view that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court suffers from perversity and the same is not at all maintainable. The Appellate Court being a final fact finding authority has rightly dealt with and having independently assessed the entire evidence on record has rightly reversed the findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court as it suffers from serious perversity. The judgment and decree of the Appellate court is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any serious infirmities. No illegalities are made 10 out. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM