Smt Uma Venaktaram W/O D S Venkataram vs Sri Murali Krishna Reddy T on 21 June, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Uma Venaktaram W/O D S Venkataram vs Sri Murali Krishna Reddy T on 21 June, 2011

Bench: N.K.Patil

_ (By,  ?.SriniV*2§ﬁiaﬁ, Adv)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KEQQNATAKA AT A'

DATED THIS THE 21~'*>TI1)AY OF' JUNE~.;:2'a:i    '

pREsEN?*"--.«f

THE HONBLE MR. gU$f:{:::1§§?';K.:5gifi«L . '

AND a
THEEﬂNWBLERﬁ{JUSTKﬁ§ARALINAGARAJ
E&vxN(i5Q?EH?2§0S ;
BEWNEEN_J;i7¥. A ﬁ:  nW§

Smt. Uma Veri:1<zi;§ar;3:r1-.,.  ..  7
W/ 0 D;'S%f\fe:iEiataj:;*am; . 9 
Aged 312301;: 51'-"y€~ai':3, " "

No.17129L@hhﬁﬁH{BSKﬁLSﬁg§;
BANGA@RE»560Q7¢.'
 V' ' '  * . .Appeﬁar1i

 *2  Krishna Reddy: 11

 S_/~27'! j.,E'T. Venkata Reddy,
" Aged' éabeut 38 years,
ikicé,-1; 1019/A, Service Road,
~ Githangih Layout?
 HAL H Stageg
BANGALORE ~-- 5139 3:35.

  Sri. BS. 'ifenkataram,

@ Kfenkatarama Sharmag

5,19 SuE:»1*ar:1a::ya:I:,,

Ag/ggeai gzhazué: 58 jgésezra

E\E<>, §?E2§ 14%? Zviaéng BSK E5 Siaga
%i§£--3:L§§?;E, - 558 €;3?'€}.



2

3. Sri. Raghunandan Sharma,
SA) 135. Venliataram,
Aged abgut 28 years, _-- 
No. 1732, 14'31Main, BSKI1:'Sia'g--f3..A 
BANGALORE ~ 560 070. ' 3

4, Sri. G.H* Vishn'ukuma;?, 
S/Cs G.M. Hanumanthappeﬁg.
Aged about 55 years;   «-
No.4», 49" Cross, 29.8. Iy.e'ng'arj81:inE:_€t,
Sheshadripuram}  .   g   .
BANGALORE ~m 560 ;:>2o'.y' 

' V    _ Resp0m:1€nts
{By Sri S.Ran12;1€;1j'V:rthy§ Aztiir 'for'  and R3 natice
dispensed gxzitixv;Z_Q_--:'dtv.  . V

This__ 'i's'*--:;f_i§ed. 'UV}'S«3<:,96} of CPC, against the
Judgrxiént  If»Ve'<;3f€:'<~::.. ' da'i:edm 08.01.2008 passcad in
O.S.No; Q99'2/2'O(;}5A40::4thé'=fiie' of the XXIX Add}. City cm
and Sassions Judgaf B_.a '1*iga}ore [CCH~30) decreeing the
suit for récQVevry"QfVm0né5y, against the defendants 1 and

2 {herein a.ri'd._.d;2smissin"? the suit against i:h€ defeandants

 3 améil 4'therein";~  _

 '   'Afjpeal Coming on for Orders this day, Arali
--Naga1A'ajv'J.,; delivered the following-

JUDGMENT

" appeal is by the secand defenﬁant in .' 'i3V.S3\'Eo59§*92g'2i3G5:0n th€ file if '':he {earned XXJX Aédig T ""CTit};' Civii and Sessiens Judge [CCH«3G)§ Bangalore {heréinafisr r€f€rr€::i {G as f/he 'Trial Caurt' 53:' Shari}. The :a,§ps'§1;«>;r;§ Eiéifeézz has zjhzzileﬁgésﬁ in 81:3 2z;:>§€e:§9 the 'iégegaiéiy mid <:0:*rai<?ii:1<::*ss of thi: §j::c§g::3€:L:é 3:251 §}e<7:'i5s:

iizshiéié S5-1£'%E.iZ$%8 passeé is: 1;:h{:r ssaisi s>t:..:§€;§ a:§eai:§$€i:":g ihé ,««..V,_ A, ""*"' ~ ,h...,...w "....4_% K»A>

(iii) 4 No'-4111400 awaiting clearance. They further impressed upon the plaintiff"

they were required to pay ﬁe the K .2; sum of Rs.2,0L00,00§/« we ' meidenta}. payments i_ne11_;§ii::;§Vt'_2z;< and other eess fer getting-A-the 'r38.i€1. iE3Iﬁ<3'b1e.I1'E:.;eAA of Rs.2'?0 er0resV§:1eare€i';-- A. At that time, the :";iefe.:;daf1is-_p1feciu«::ed photostat eeﬁiiesVefi;_${1ffxe[f:jt:»::uments. The piairlﬁiff be1Aieyf:e'd.Vt}:i_e fsai'dvV.eLe;;e--fnents ef the defei':e1}1nte=__asg him that after g'get :~:;ﬁ'g"ihe-._V'sé{i~d "7ar':':_'<,n,V1:1'c from the said _B3rnK;-Iﬁhey'wou1d_,.§.=lend hm': a sum of _ _ interest free Kean'; The 'defe:1Ve12ﬁ_fx?:Te'*~f:e'cp1ested the plaintiff that a Eakhs be given to them as uioeirifor a. short period of 45 days which ehall carry interest @ 12% p.a. so that they get the said amount released and . e%:§:i}e the piaintiff the eaid loan Qf Rey? V eroree. Agreeing £0 lend the saiai ameunt of R375 Eakhe 'he the defendants? he insisted Iihem to furnish proper e{>11eJ:ere£ security? eeeuring the :"€§a}7E':i€1'}i ef the ieané Aeeerdinglfg, E/he féreé egzé eeeeed {%e§er:é2:§:*S{e iegeteer e§§e:*eC% iheir gmperiiee 2153 {f{}§§E%;§f3E"2i§ --e>e::*:1:**;€,,}2: Qne ef i;/he eeiiié \ ,,,,,,, .3, _»_k

(iv) properties was Sy.N0.9/ 1 sit_§1'at}?§ Lottegoilahaiii Village, H Bangalore Nerth Taltik} belonged to (me other p1'operties{=he10hged tee."tie§e_hda;ntVt N031 and 2.

On 20.03.ﬁC{§§}~ tagreed to lend Ioanete defen'da:r:tV against the he.te"*eXe--eﬁted by them on to the plaintiff " -t.<§';-VfiliiIfithe'-b'1--ankS"-therein with necessary '-- 'paft;'u§Ut1'ats§"t.0'the amount date etc. tiefenciants executed the saici Prothiseery Note? the plaintiff paid to them several dates, totally a sum of Rs.62 the particulars whereof are stated in v: r ' , the plain:

The defendants furnished to the piaintiff some forged documents with intent to defraud him and Qbtained the eaid loan ameunt ef R362 lakhse Various ameunte {as detailed in the pI,ai;nt,} were paid by the e};a§nt§ff te defendant §\§es..i and 2 in the §§"iiS€EE€Z'ii? :3? the \;v§t,;;eesee I12:1§}f2§3§' 1%"

(Vii) <3 Smtﬁeepae 'F.Sa.ngi Reddy and Sri Six/Iahesh Raj.

On 17.04.2004 both the defendeet Z}f'e:é".~--§ and 2 executed an Veggreemeryg.ifaffefing u immovable preperties [as _ ?

towards repayment 0f 7th e,_.said _i'e;an; that time, the e1e.{er:_§1anfe.__aisVe favour of the p1ain.tiffv.txx*~Q eﬁeq:1.ee, eﬁne for RS5 erc)re:-:..._. é'-r.1d~'_V' a::€ﬁ.;f1--er,,e i'C:f RS2 CI'OI'€S. toxvatds inte}'eet_ff.ee» :1rO8;D:adV'a1'1C€d to the plaiﬁtiff '_:.{)uI'v.O]f'1V:"IL'iSfE3(;1. The of '-."ee}'};1i'Vt_ab1e mortgage by SéLE'{E' p.r0pe:<t};es_ -- offered as deeds pertaining to the eollateral 'Seeu.ritg%fL;~.Wa;§"eigned by the defendants on "3.,?.'o;L. ;20Ae_;i.e « _VV",i"«}%_1_e pieentiff presented the said {we to the Ban}; but they eame to be "e:i_ii;§h(;n0ured for want ef "suffieierlt fur1::is"

the account of the defencianie. The defendants, by giving the plaintiff poet eiated cheques as aferesaidg induced the plaintiff ﬁe pay $9 ihem ihe ezzid amezmt as ieaﬁ.

9

5. In order to substantiate his eaee, the,§§Laie't;§ff_"i1ge' _ get himseif examined as PW1 and has .V documents at EXSPI to P34.

filed her written statement arid ""th0ugh'VVA.§he was represented by her <Z1ounseuIu§'».._xehe efnoose to adduee any eVidenee;::'_e;* tfteetlment in support of he: e0rA1At.er:i_i:'§.:>tte¢ her written statement. He:'««;@:0uI:2__seE chosen to cross» examine the an appreciation of oral evideneetwef tt0'eu_.:1'tents at EXSPI to P34§ the Tt"ia1--. impugned Judgment and Decree N031 and 2 to pay to the p1atr:§;ti'f'ft.a. stun Rs.?'2,54,000/- with interest thereen at 12% pa. from the date of suit till the date of ';fe'eJ,ieeti§i11,: vtvifievvexrer, the Trial Court declined te grant retief ef_vdat§:etges to the tune ef R350 Eakhe as etatmeet by 'Eh? ptaifitiff in the said suit. The eorreetneee of the Judgment and Degree ale questioned in this 8* We have heard the argumetiits P.Srir1ivasaiah, learned Counsel for the a';§f:ie'i1eé?;;1':'¥eee<>1*2:i"V' defendant and Sri Ramamurthy,v»}.,ear_jI'1er:i re$p0ndeni~p1aintiff. Perueed--._VimpugI'1ed pieadinge of the resp_eetiVe aned "€}'.}fCiI'€§E material found in the origineﬂ".§eCAo1fds:_'Qbteirieﬁ from the Trial Court. T

7. ::V1:'gL'*§'~.....'éppeﬂant (sgcond defendant' the Trial Court (:o:)};1e1rI1i:tetec_V1e17:tV.f'c')'fvv__'i.1f1 eievxeing reliance on Ex.P1 Pregnieeegy" ':\VI0'*eie:;(e,A%L;i:$1}C:e::r3'ideraf.i0n Receipt; Ex.P2, the alleged; :i'ekv:iox2vE-edgeﬁient of debt; Ex.P3, the «.._Ai\/Ee%:fibr;3;§1c1:,;n1 c>xf"'B-eposit of Title Deeds in respect of the pre_peri:Ee:S defendants, Exs.P22 to P34 {he receipts sé;ieI 'Lo v}1Qa?:<§€§9§3een signed by the first defendant. as the reaid doeumente are not admissible in evieienee and "..:*».ther.efe:9e§ the impugned Judgment and Decree deserves set aside by eilewing' She ereseni apggzeal and the Weei: ef the §§'c1.§f1§§§§ éeeervee ﬁe be diezeieeed. He furéher e,::2:':ie::::§s.~; that EXP: E? i/he maﬁa :§{><::;§:":e::§; en w§':£€:h the péeeizriiff Eégae {e;;::1ﬁe<i hie e§:::ir:1., {;a1:§;h: 336%: E/<3: hswe 'beexz 32 Court is quite justified in deereeing the suit of the piaintiff.

9. Having heard the arguments of Iea1'ned""€f;oui:f:svei2htfee the respective parties; the poiﬁt the: '"ari~ses_.' '-§_1:.1jV"{>ui*7 eonsideration in this appeal :_ Whether the Triai _C<i)urt h_:ezec:vepting E2<.P1 Prermissory hfehieacz-:xm;v£7Afe::.§i<ie=:jr:;iion HRHe<:eip€:

Ex,P3 the Zﬁzferrtoranciuzﬂ of title deeds, Exs, iii Vhvdecreeing the suit of 'E

10. ohfeihed from the Trial Court dise10sex'--e*;hatV 'the'.v»~.i(T;~.ounsel repreeented all the defendant "be'fc:)re the Trial Court As could be . ."'eeeii':f1:-1""§he:'&frorffthe records, first defendant did not Ae'€hQO$€...:V"€Q" his wriiten statement and Second deAfe1jV:dea;§;t,:vLA<§'.Vihe Wife of first defendant, theugh ﬁled VV'"ax{ritteh'veiiatement ihmugh her Ceunsei, contesting the Jef ihe piaintiff by iaking eeverai pieaeﬁ diﬁ net eheeee to ereee~--eXe:{::ir;e ?E-V}; ipiaimiff) Ber did ehe eheese ée step ﬁrm} the wimeee be}: and give her eviéenee §::3:" p§e'sz%:':g;? the gzéeeiss %.i:3f§~:e:'3 $3: her 2;e'§i,ien $§;Ei§i§3ﬁE€§E.§; She /w_.{~g..»-jg has not %@ Chosen to produce: any do(:L1menIi, for ths re2::sons bésf known {:3 her. In View cf;§._ 'Eh'e.se ctircumstances, What needs to be examimféd.

"wheth<=:r thé: Tria} Court exercised. ,_1_'equ;iréd" 1:} VV accepting the entire evidsnce, 0rai_ Taf1dTT'~dAC:::u:n&:f1i3:i'3%. placed on record by the plainfiff in Ad'eQre€uif:-g suit of V the plaintiffl

11. It is well sett1eV<V:_:1V_ proceeds for hearing' €XpaF'i€§'Ai}71,'g if fhe€:ie}"ef1'd§.fi't;v-tkﬁéugh rapresented by his Courizfvs-<3E; :;3f<.3(?:.é' 11()Tf:':fi}<§:V"wriiﬁeh statement or, if the defendant, _ﬁb;l:'>_ug.$h3V. ﬁ}.{§S~«.V¥Vfi'5;'T,€H statement, doses not pa1*tiCip2iieV_inVVthc.._p1?{§'c¢§éd:ﬁ*:g'S of the cases throughout (as in tbs; 'izizgtarii cage)", the giourt is not absolved sf its duty :§f.:iéCidifig CaS€ in accerdance with iaw, on the other hart:-At}, circumstances, 21:: additiisnai _ 0b1i§:3,ti0--:':':s"'C5.st on the Courti ':0 act with Caution to see .ﬂ%.::1";Aa,§__ir1 t.f':;:: absencs / Si1€I1C€ ef the defendant, the plaintiff . dikes 'fiat Susceeé £3 achieving what he is 1:01': entiﬂed ta Gr' {:3 whiff: E36 £363 H92? df3S€:"i.?€» 'E23:3:°€:f0ri: £3523 have 15:} axamizzs xzrhgeiégeé ﬁgs '§':'§al {f{::=:::":; ::::x:e:*{:§V:<;€Ci Efhii requérési aéazziéeg 1:3 2£<:<:%aé;3i/Eng; E1126 {§E"§@€§E{?ij'f pizzeiteé {yrs }'f:{':(}§'£§ by {he 14 plaintiff both era} and doeunientary and the_ suit ef the plaintiff placing relianee * "

12. The crucial deeurnentfeffeliect"neon bj}"th'e...Vp1aintiff are: Ex.P1 'On niete~eum~ Ceneideration ReeeipVt""--eai<i:'- executed by defendant Nee.) of loan amount of ,e.t..gf for having received of R315 iakhs, Ex.P3 Mernorfantittrnv Title Deeds and Exs.P22 to P34 the feeetpte' have been passed by the first ~"'~._v'defen.detnt __for u"naV_ing received from the plaintiff the '1"eS'peetijéet eniounts mentioned therein on the relevant dates shovfn therein.

AA 13." tee' is the very ease of the plaintiff, as averted in his A' 'Apia-int and as stated in his affidavit sworn to ee his

-~.e;<arn:énatien-«in~ehief? that on 1603,2004 etefenciant E"€ee,I and 2 jeintéy executed 'blank Prorenéseery Note' in his favetn" e:nt,heriein§§ him te fill 33%; the bienke theeein nieené fer fitting the etneentﬁ names? eiatet {E.i:{':S§ enet then Ene fen; tnein ¥21§'i{)téE§ a,rnez:nt;::'--,; on different {t3.t,ee ee £6 Signature ('With fuil address) Written by M.RaI;1aswa;nyR:A'»v.._ ' The <i:onsiderat'io_nj.. re(f:eipt: 'whivoizé is part of E2X.P1 "ads 33 ""d€rooNsIDl£._1§A1'}ioI§I Rs. 72;, _P1a<:e : Bangalore .... % Date:6/10/2005 R€C€i_if€i{.i_.. i§To1n4 V.. T.MuraIikrishna Reddy S/0 VenI§'at1:eddyg Field, Bangalore the sum of Rupe€§~_$ e<ren'ty'V:_".Lacks Fifty Four Thousand only tho" oonsidoration amount of the promote us this day in your favour in V the following witnesses :

Signature Signature ; Signature {With fuﬁ elddross} Witnossois : 1} R{}4f}§21.J , {S§g'na§nr€} ﬂog M2 EQIZ, i?i.?'Z*:§§:3f§oEd, %§2i1:§g2nor€ -» 65 2} 'f'.Sa:2§§ Reéidggp {Sg2;:':2n::o::2s::} Wham ~ _\k"

£7 NO.182, FZOIZ 'ﬁhitefieici, Bar1gak3r«:1:*66 "

Vv"riti€I1 by M.Ramaswamy

13. Section 4 of N.I.A§;t gilefiries "Pr0r:1i::'3és€§Ai'§,s under:

A "promissory in writing {not being__ a bq.n.l{~_z2Q:é_V ""'a'V'~Vé;;r§*enCgwnoie} Containing ' ' urz:€:0n1d::.?;iofta;Z"' iindgfidicing, signed by sum of money only liq... V-::;_r_ :§_)z¢(:é3_zf" person, or to the bearer €ij" ?*:~he_ iz2str*t,:fT1(;_n{. _' ' »-- 'I114ustrations A s'ign§__§n.struments in the foﬂowing terms:

"I promise to pay B or order R5500."

"I acknowledge myself to be indebted '£0 B in Rs. LOGO/», to be paid on dermand, for value re<:eiVeCi."

:3} 'M13, I.C>.U. RsgL{}O{}f~I'

d) "I premise ts pay 8 R;s.'5{)C}, and 931 other sums which shaii be CiLE€' ":0 him."

3} "E prgmise is; pa}? 8 RS;§QQ', first dedusrfiing iheisgui, 3235; menéjg xgvhissh he ma}? aws 2:16,"

E} "i §}§"{}§"E:§;'3»f3 ii; pay 8 R;$.§$@ ssexréiyz éajgs zzﬁisi" mfg' mzzrrizige vé§%,E3 Cf'

g) "I promise to pay 8 Rs.5QQ»of1~.D';£i:doafh,*«V. provided D iea\>€s"fiio fzniiughii 1-o_pay,'ihi'aft

ii) "I promise i,o_ pay to deliver to b1'a(:_k vhV0I'$Ei".Qf£" vi January r1eX{:7.'_ ' ' " ' ' "

The inszirumenis' ;fféspes.iiio_é:*ly:.griotrlced ond {F3} are only promissory instruments respectively' v'[f}',. and {h} are noi pr.o,rrLi.ss,3;*:,:,'y rtOii€é;~ _ i

14. F§'_oII;i i',_he €'J}(')'{f't3'}':v"(i'('Ei"ivI';'itiV'(;¥Ii" and the illustrations, it is iowljiring 3, document within the definiiioii Note, it should contain the 'name of the ,oroVn'viisAee'"i'o whom or to whose order the pro_ifii«is$.s:§ro promisos...i:o pay a certain amount. If EXP} is iiii.e light of tho above definition, it couid be se<3r1~ithat,--.V.i,;1'the Promissory Note portion of ii, thoro is no roeriiioiiiofiho name of the plaiiiiiff as iho 'promisee', The "..:"i§:onis.ide:1;aiion receipt, which is the other part of EXP} oi-jioéiigs ihai a sum of Rs.Z?'2,54,QG{3/~ was receiiioci by " méiofsiidaiii, i\Jo$.i and 2 iioro iiio piainiifi T.?v'iLEZ{"aii§{,i'iShI}a Qoééy on €3§,i{3,2G{I?5 iisoii", 'E€ii:,;:$, ii" {',{}i"1?:§§§€?i"3§i£ft§i §'£3{7€':i:'§§, pa::srii<.>ii of E1:>a:,Pi £~3i"i£}Vs?Sé 'ihéii, iiio Cioiéiicizizii: i'€osi.i gr;-~.., and 2 reeeiveel from the plaintiff T Rs.?2,54,eoo/-- on 08.l0.2005:;"'the. l5rernlie;ef;r$%v--'.lJ0te V portion of EXP} does not eontailn A' defendant N05,} and 2 t0lpe;j?~~._Mt/0 plaeitttifflltttelljsatcl"V arneunt. Therefore, the <:loen.:ne'n.t"E§x.Pl "c:anne:t be held to be a legally enforVe'e_aTi3lel_Pr2§:»mieeety._Note as defined under Section .4 oftthe. Trial Court committed eléroizé reliance on this cl0eument.__ 'V ' 'H. .

Eiwof NI. Act which defines "holderA"£g1"ciue=__ee:ureé??_;'"leharned Counsel fer the first respQ:1v<ient¥pl_é1ir1.'£it'f etfengly contends that since EX.Pl 'l V"--v.Pretnis::5e>ryl. Note-eu:n?Considerati0n Receipt is produced of the plaintiff, it is to be held that he is its._lhelde.f'"e:'iint:; due CGLH'S€ though his name does net lU__8.pp€fa§' hi;t1 the Prerniesory l\l'ete as prennsee. This ,,:lj"en:hln:.issien eannet. be accepted for the reason that the gtainttff dees not fall within the definition ef éheider in tine C{}t1;t'S€3 as defineé 12,58 9 ef §€.l.:%<%t, Bestées thie, it is net the ea:'~3e ef the gletintéft} either as 'S€v'€%3't"€d in the ggleintt :32" ee (iepeeeel hf; hizfn in €'»:'§{l%f3;¥1{?{i§ that hae xx"

" seiiepied.

20 been holder in due Course. Further, n1ere1y_;'s'ee.:;u_se he produced the said document from his ﬁ.V{:g;n;«1:j:., be held that he is holder in which does not contain the namegsf =_sfc>1ni'see'~es1ﬁ;et.,Ije_ held to be a 'legally ergfefeeabie szj'::ote'. ' Therefore, the persongin eusi'sciy-- sf' SuC1'1 'Ci0C'e1ff1€ﬂ¥Z as E:><;.P1 can net ciaim toabes its' ,'_hjs1ivdef»i:3_d'U_e course' .

16. respondents plamtiff, Vof Section 20 of N1.

Act blank Promissory Nate x7vith0u1v;: 'AfVi'--11§r1g blanks therein is permissible underu1a\§"~Vsf1d_'iherei'sf'e in EXP} promissory note by tiie""'**€.efendants, the plaintiff filled the 'utajtleuiit-,.»_A:i2ii:eVand also the names of defendants, as he by the defendants to do ss and therefsre the 'f:fi2s{7£'.:C.s<uri has righﬁy decrees the suit of the pisiniiff V' en the said Promisssry Nate. For :he reasons esgesdy s¥:a't':eeE by as ssprs, this zésntexﬁisn esnzzsi be ~»,,, gN._,,_s

17. As ebserved by us supra, EXP} Prernjiéen:3;'._lN':;§e; % does not disclose that defendant Nes.1_.an.af.2"--{egetE:e1=.. promised the plaintiff to pay to :»;:m,4_§Tn;d'g::&:gm§:',' amount of Rs,7:2,54,C1{}O/'--as {ff plaintiff as prornisee is net fanned on 1i'}3e":3:::.':d Qoeument. Therefore, EXJP1 co1%L:1«_ te be' va legally enforceable Promissory' Nete'.

18. as averted in the plainf; anei aleer as PW1, that he lent to defendant argd-.2'V~.'r;etaI1y a sum of R362 lakhs by giving them va:":ei;e on various dates during the periedfyorné 05.05.2004 as detailed in para of th;e"p1aini:Wane1 aeeordingiy filled up the said 'eheV:'Frem:ssery Note executed jointly by the {Si and M2"<?. .e1efenCiants en 16,03.2UG4 leaving the blanks "'..,:hereinv i1nfi11ed, But the ease which is seught to be by him through the document EXP? is {hat he gem: in them a sum of esxezzeaeeeeg» en O6.?:{}.2C>C%§. Surﬁng a:g:n"nente, ﬁne Eearne/:3 Ceuneel fer the fire? reependssnézp§a§ni::§ﬂ" nried in inznzess npen Eihe Gene": {net {hie ef §%sg?2?§4,{'éQ€3;'¥ is izzeiueéve ei' §1}?;€2:'€fSi; en r»-c> Ex.) actual loan amennt of R362 lakhe which plaintiff to the defendants d1,"l;I>'Ai>VI1}";?': W6 V 1e.e3,2o<;>4 to 05.95.2004.

plain: as to this fact. BesideaV:VL:f,b§s, E5W._1__ inn' his evidence that the;__princtApatA"1eanLA arnciunt R362 Iakha and the said stn'nV:«'o.f ~ was inclusive of interest on the said. Further, the total of the para No.9 of the plaint V. iakhs. Therefore?

the first respondent-

plaintifttb in the principal amount alleged Ltobeenvslent by the plaintiff to the 1;, '~ _defe_n*danta_ dO€S.'Vf1'{)-5---«C1€S€I'V'€ any acceptance. is the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds. document is said to have been executed Tttt'-'««___V'-geintiy" the second defendant Smtifrna Venkataran:

V."an:1_':0ne S:nt.Lakaha:nma, fer effering their respective _.v_p:}epert/ﬁes in faaretn' ef the piaintiff aa cniiaterai security V timrayas repajgnzent at" tne lean aniennt, Gn pernaai at tine <§eean1ent,, it enaéci; Seen :,a:a it atateté therein that tine Stat: defencéant 2/r*t;2;.t E}tSf2Fei2%s:2:t:;at:*21tn2 I;'e:::n::%a§;e{% the plaintiff to lend, for a ehort period of of R375 iakhs to enable him :{fii*st.ciefen:cieiit} f:tof}pfé;§z ' legitimate dues to FEMA entitle him to get 3 sum of erQres_ft'Q i3e"IeieaSeci" V by FEMA Board for in\:estmeiitfffe;i;1id"--tiier.efei*ve..the plaintiff agreed to lend t0 the Said amount.' It is further stated in that that the plaintiff paid. to date of the said document of R310 iakhe and agreed,:ffte'Vp:;ty;:the attiifeunt within 80 days from the dette V ti1ef'.f.ei\/iefriorandum. The details of payments t.QV'Vha3:_ef'b"een made by the plaintiff to the ,'fiF$.i:ffi€3f§%T1(718.Ht"fi1°"€'---SHOVVI1 in the said document (EX.P3]. iieeen from the said details, the plaintiff is s3.iti"'it0 to the first defendant a tetai sum of 'V Rs.:§?i,..Gt)«i{}t}'t}/~ {Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs} {in different eitiririg' the period from 15.03.2004 te 16.04.2004 _V --' i780%w20®% a 32.1112 of Rsxiti faiths but not R382 ~»vEe;i<:he as <::ie.imed by him ii": his Eifeiiﬁt', tit" R:r§.'?2i54,§{}Ci,/~ 31$ meiiiierieei ii: C€3i1E3§Ci€'I'eiti(}ii Reeeipt petiieii ef the €i{T'»Ci,ii"ffi€;',I'i'i} EX, ?i . piaintiff eriginais ef her title deeds, nothing eige piaintiff fram predueing' the same ﬁe prove eoiiaieral eeeuriijg by the eeeend ;:iefei1:;¥e.:§f. .g

21. It is the ease of theV_p--§e.ini1'iff. ' are the receipts said 'te haxéei by} the first defendant oniy, " receipt of the respective ameunis or;-ﬁ--:e as mentioned in the said at EXs.P.22 te P34 are d:2,. T"Geneva Fine Punch Enelosidree of which the plaintiff has tweed 'iZ;)i_ﬁ'e'eter. Ail these documents are more '<")p.1ess "'3i:1iiIar1%; worded. Therefore, in order to V. .__prG.§;§erI;;r_e_ur:dere£a:1d«ﬂee contents of each ef them, the ee21te11§s'r§f.E:>;,I§'22 are extracted and they read as under:

" ~ "_"_v»(}E»,NE'\z'.é3 FINEPUNCH ESNCLQSURES LIMITED V. . " 28: 2, E3812, Whiiefieidg Barzgaiere ~»~ 5368 088 Tel: 8410159, 84113181458 Fax: §8G~841€3855 Z Eaiaaii: e:[email protected],z2,ei,im Web: '21n3mr.ge::evafi:1epu:1e}1.ee$::

' 'f". Béuraii Ekiehzza Reddy efiarzeging ﬁireeier eyieyeél 22,. Zéﬁé ?:i£:: 3. S, Efeztdieirazzz Shefma "'é;'}u:*z:§ever:e§:;ra"

.~'""'"'-% M-...,.'W, , 9»-~.., 3 'M.»»'s 1'?/2; 14'?! Main, 30"} Cross.

Banshankari H Stage.

Bangalore': 560 £370.

Dear Mr. Sharma, V _ V a V .

We are: hereby giving Lakhs by Cash towards_unse§:u--red::1VQan_:a " ' ' Kindly ghéj i.1--':a3=:same.

Thankiiag A ' ' 'V ' ' V (Signature) T.M::IRAL1 KRI[s;HNA_ RE~:)DY MANAQINQ l3I_RECTQR .» b é 'V"\7it.,neSs:* ., _ " V 1 ;,."Sigj1i1atu1;éV H """ " 'V R0093 N924 fa? ;f,x.N.Pura, '--._'D'£'~€2':§a3g 'B'10reA 16., T AN ISO 9002 COMPANY description sf plaintiff as "TA/Iur23.1i Krishna . :R§:>:3._giy,ﬁkianaging Director" which appear in 31} these V_ €1§§é'u'ﬁ2€nis at E1>:s.P22 to P34 which are on {he letter iaéaé sf ihe said Corzzpany Ciéarljxi g9 ':10 shew {hat tbs V a::1{}u:?:E msniiszrgeé in saith :3? {he saici ::i{>i:1;::::s:1'iEs '$33.3 graié :0 ¥:E":é: <';8fé:::2.§23:":§ E).S.Vsnkz;?§;::n3. Sharmgz anti E39 wass 2/'1f,~;E}{{?¢:§ Egg 2:{::§£V:1{§2x?1£>dg;;<3 1:325: 1"€?{,7€'/Iii}? 5}? tiézaé seams: 2:::s;r:% ~* * x ~»«., 27 that the said amounts were paid by the plaihtif1'.__vi2:.§ Murali Krishna Redd}; on behalf of the said his capacity as its Managing' ﬂireetor. But plaintiff 1:3 that he lent the said defendants in his incliVidual>eapaeittjfl'-._l.l 9 A LA

23. Further, all the to P34 do not bear the endelieernextt detehdatxt that he received the EiI1'1(:)_1,w}.-1?Z5l._ the respective receipts. Ed: bear the said end0rse:r1erlt.l"'~C"¥.:§; E>;svl3"2?le the the endorsement is "received ._e9_sh"7,'~ff"l3ls'aettdorsement doee not establish that thexjelspeefixteel aﬁmunts mentioned therein were _ reeei§}te{i'~hy 15?" «cilevfentilant jointly with the 2% defendant, »Eft1rthetf?'«tetA;e11.glmouht uhder these E;>:s,P22 to P34 €10 hat "tally,'x2tttltllt"_"Lt.ht:."total ameunt Qf loan i.e., R362 lakhs as avet;:'e(i'.ih"'the plalht and as stated in the evidence ef V' If » §W''E 24; Pleitatiffs Case is that while ta.l«:.:1:";gf the said lean {rem him the that tiefehelgtht §3;&1V'%E% him tare cheques? ehe the R35 <%r::>1"es; atrial the ether fez" timres gted the said Cheques, on being pregented to the encashment, came to be bounced. Xero:§:V__e::~pieS§."'0f {he said Cheques are produced and E§.eth {)f together as 1::x.:>19. But the_ p:a:n:::*£ has 1'aiCi: fE":e"~Vev foundatiean for producing eﬁeques as secondary evideneﬁ.,,i;1as.x:?£i§Ci?i;.ae;,_r10 exipiaraation is given by the plaintiff as caulci not be producecig committed serious errééf the photostat copies of the sxaici Che-que%;§ 'as"'t,hey :3.fe"i:1admissibIe in evidence. 25; for the first respondema plaigtiff has.' uﬁon EXPII, copy of the complaint the First Information Report and the complainant therein {appellant herein). Refe«rrin_g"t:>a:'ihis doeumemz, he strongly contends that the :"'appei1aI1--:'¥seeond Ciefendant has stated in her statement; before the psolice ecmcerned {Investigation Qffieer} VA her husbané W33 éue, :0 {he aeeuaeéi iherein V121, Evfzzraeié E{1*ie§f::r:a RL€§{ij§ ﬁgaiaiméff hereizﬁ, a saaam ef Rs.$5 iakﬁaa ané '2he:*efer{": ﬂee gaéci zzeeaseé Margit; Krésizga Rez:§::§}s* had {§{?'§:§?:§§1{'E{fi her {Em aiééfenzizméi fa}? ;3:*€3ss5'e:.:§'i:3§:::;__:j 29 her to pay the said money, and therefore; 'ti1atfa»d'misAsiQh'v itself establishes that the first were due to the plaintiff thesaid éimetlht It is well settied that the stateeteht ree{;rtj1eAci:"333/thithheh police V' during investigation ezfe eriﬁiirietl' ease eethI'1e.§.~rPe taken as legally admissible of evidence of statement. It is not in of Complaint with FIR aai*'e"VV'pV;t'0dueed by the plaintiff, he has:"'.r_A1<5t:_ 1.0. Who recorded the said statement;~exa.tht1i1'eCt_vets:_":;L witness on his behalf to prove theeohtents efvthe said statement. Therefore, we are of :ti'1V:_ L"c0tis:dei:e_d opinion that the Trial Ceurt committed L"::ah'ethe1'v se;fiehs"'errer in relying on this document Ex.P11 as feteeaht. éfgiieee of evidence in support of the ease ef the " h 'V L _ 13x.P'? eepy hf FIR, Ex.P8 poiiee notice, Ex:.PQ eepy of eempiaint, Ex.P1Q the repert in hewspapet; E2:.P12 eepfg Qt ehether FIR, EZLPI3 tmethet eemeleiet, EELPQQ §t2i§§§C5t§i9:1 in the §;€'s7VS§i;}.p€i§ EX.§23 eepy ef tthargesheet ere reheat t:§::<:>h hy the ;:sh2.h':t;t§f, All these 30 deeuniente, being copies, are not proved by the plaintiff by getting the authors thereof examined in this"-elase. Therefore, the Trial Ccsurt Committed serious placing reliance on these <:loe:_i:'nent$_"Wliieli» 'a:¢,ai:"' inadmissible in evidence.

27. Learned Counsel the -ht-ireeljpendenti plaintiff placing relianee"':en of' Court in the ease of K.Narayan:.a:--..

reported in contends that since not step into the witnese b§;:l:1.'su't3stantiating her case as pleadedlliiigllieifl nor has she Chosen to get,*I.Vitneee.._Ve§<:arnined on her behalﬁ the passing of eoneifleiiatien under Preinissery Note E1X.Pl has t0 be therefore, the Trial Court has rightly deei9ee:l'V.¢tlie.V suit ef the plaintiff. Suffice it tea say that V' 2..fi.aAineeA we have already Come tea the eenelusion that Eix,Pl eannet be taken as legally enforceable Preznissery Nate, the gueetien ei §f€SlEE'{1§§"l,g tea: tile eerieieleratieri '{l"3€:§'{?Ei§"i§€i" paeeeé ffiérifl the plznmiiff tie tiie ﬁefenelante siieea net arise at all,

28. Learned Ceunsel for the first reepom:i.en'i~ plaintiff has also piaeed reliance on a deeisionéef*Hi:>n"Vh1eV Supreme Ceurt in the ease of Vidhyadharf And Another reported in (1999) '-2373 in of his contention that since seee1<1ef'defen§1'ani choose to enter the witness the the plaintiff has been Court.

Since the plaintiff has. to» prove the execution of ""'x:>h Promissory Note' eeeond defendants, the Wreceived the amount of debt no consistency in the pleaihnge and"ex;ffe1enee, as to the amount of debt: said to by the plaintiff to the defendants, this Supreme Ceari: is ef no help to the j first"1?eS;je.n'dent--piain':iff and no adverse inference eeuid V.he'fLi1jau}n against, Zed defendant-appellants

29. Referring ﬁe ihe previeiens of Order éi'; Rafe ii CFC aha the aeeieien ef Eienﬁhie Sapeeine Gear? in "she eaee ef Sajrafzgiaé Shévehanérai Rzzie 'ifs, Shashikeae 9%.

32 N.Ruia and Others reported in (2004) 5 SCC * Counsei fer the appe11ant~seeom'i~ .._det'e*_rtekt:1tI,"et1*.er1gi§5uVV contends that though the first deterxtfineﬁt ewh appeal aggrieved by thejimpug:1.ed and"

Decree, nor has he jotnefi 29$-'de.?en'éi'a,ht irrth.is.Aa§ppeai as her ceeppellant, this the powers under Order be pleased to dismiss the " ..as against the first defendjaritt' T:I0n'b1e Supreme Court hae ht XXXX V'4*.V._.V:(}v)rder 4} Rule 4, Code of Civil Iireeedgreg invests the appellate Court with * te '_j.reVerse or vary the decree in favour 0f.e;iV}:'j_t1"£e plaintiffs or deferidante even though 2 theyhhad not joined in the appeal if the decree 1:'§reeeeds upen a greuhd eernrnen te all the plaintiffs er defendants?

39. if the facts and eir<f:urnstar1ees of the instant ease are examined in the Eight ef the abeve eheervatiene sf Henfhie Supreme Ceurt, it is eteer that the eaee ef the eieietréff ege.§ee»t/ heth the §€§€§:dé%§1§1 §'*~E'ee.1 and 2 is ietxéedeii er: the :-azaree set; ef §::1<;tte iitéé the eztezzee ef action, and he hag sought to prove it through mtg» evidence oral and dOCL1II1€£1taI'}'. 'fherefore,*'..'_vi:heI1' V' found that the oral and d:)Ct1menf::tfy record by the plaintiff 33 against sesgoizd defe1_3td'23.nt:4 i's:_"'r;.0ti'._ legally acceptable, we have not that V the suit of the plamtiﬁ ti;-._'be dismissed as against first defendant etwleea V;

For the': tthiemﬂtpresent appeal is allowed... """ and Decree dated o8.01.2'<)o8d_ paVs'sd%§;c:j1'mg"'Q)';:3_No.9992/2005 by the Trial Court is; he'::eby set A3_.eid_e5 Consequently, the suit of the hefeby......dismissed against both defendants _N':>s."} exude S2"; order as to Costs. M "'g f d up 3%,;

§§f_;e 353??

%:,,V,;,, »3&,,,.>ﬁ§.§'.A.«' 13:1!'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court