Bangalore District Court
K.C. Govindappa vs Nagaraju on 21 January, 2023
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE Court OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2023.
PRESENT:
Sri MALLANAGOUDA, B.Com.,LL.M.,
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.8442/2013
PLAINTIFFS : 1. K.C. Govindappa,
S/o. K. Chowdappa,
Aged about 43 years;
2. G.R.Vijayalakshmi,
W/o. K.C. Govindappa
Aged about 38 years;
3. G. Gayani,
D/o. K.C. Govindappa,
Aged about 15 years.
The plaintiff No.3 is minor
and hence, she is being
represented by her natural
guardian mother plaintiff
No.2 - G.R.Vijayalakshmi
and the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3
are residing at No.507, 3rd
Cross, Weavers Colony,
GottigerePost,Bengaluru-83
(By Sri V.S. Patil, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Nagaraju,
S/o. Gangappa,
Aged about 55 years;
Cont'd..
-2- O.S. No.8442/2013
2. Anithamma,
W/o. Nagaraju,
Aged about 50 years;
3. P. Manikumar,
S/o. Nagaraju,
Aged about 28 years;
4. Poodur Vijayaraju,
S/o. D. Thippanna,
Aged about 43 years.
The defendants1 to 4 are
residing at Sri Krishna
Nilaya, Taluk Office Road,
Devanahalli, Bengaluru
District.
(Defendants 1 to 3 : Ex-parte)
(Defendant No.4 by Sri
K.V.P., Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 21-11-2013
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Damages/compensation.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 31-10-2018
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 21-01-2013
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 9 years, 2 months, -- day/s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(MALLANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.8442/2013
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking damages of Rs.25,000/- and permanent injunction.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under -
The plaintiff No.1 is working as Postman in H.S.R. Lay-out Post Office and the plaintiff No.2 is working as Postwomen in Chikpet Post Office and the plaintiff No.3 is the daughter of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and she is studying in 9th Standard. The plaintiffs have availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from defendants No.1 to 3 for interest at the rate of 2 per cent. The plaintiffs were regularly paying interest, - but in the last year, defendants have raised the rate of interest from 2 per cent to 3 per cent and without any alternative, the plaintiffs have agreed for the same and continued to pay interest at the rate of 3 per cent. In September, the plaintiffs have repaid Rs.1,50,000/- and assured to repay the entire amount in January, 2014 and they requested the defendants Nos.1 to 3 to return the On Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.8442/2013 Demand Promissory Note, - but the defendants have refused for the same and they have stated that they will return the same at the time of final settlement. The defendant No.4 is the son-in-law of the defendants Nos.1 to 3 and he has created forged stamp papers and threatening the plaintiffs to pay Rs.5,00,000/-. When the plaintiffs questioned the same, he states that the calculated the rate of interest in Meter Baddi and amount will be more than Rs.5,00,000/-. When the plaintiffs have not yielded to the demand made by defendant No.4, the defendant No.4 and other 7 to 8 persons came near the house of the plaintiffs and threatened the plaintiffs stating that they will kill the plaintiffs and throw away from the city and even they manhandled the first plaintiff. Again on 04.10.2013, the defendant No.4 along with four persons came near the office of the first plaintiff; they threatened the first plaintiff and they also defamed the plaintiffs in front of their neighbors and colleagues. At that time, the defendant No.4 abused the first plaintiff in filthy language using the words "ಸಸಲಸ ತಗಗಗಗತರಸ, ವಸಪಸಸಸ ಕಗಗಡಗಗದಲಲ , ನಮಮ ದಸಡಡಲಲ ಮಜಸ ಮಸಡಸತತಗರಸ, ಬಗಗಗಳಮಗನಗ". Since the said Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.8442/2013 incident was happened in front of the public and even the defendants abused the plaintiffs in spite of the fact that they promised to clear the loan. The plaintiffs and their daughter have afraid of coming out of the house and to do their day-to-day activities and they filed complaint with the police. Therefore, plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit seeking damages and permanent injunction against the defendants.
3. After service of summons, the defendants Nos.1 to 3 are placed ex-parte and defendant No.4 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement as under -
The plaintiffs have filed this suit on false and baseless averments. The plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands. They have suppressed the true facts and in the cause title, the address of defendant No.4 is wrongly mentioned. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are not residing with the defendant No.4, but they are residents of Aandra Pradesh. Even the names of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as shown in the cause title are incorrect. Averments of para 2 of the plaint are Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.8442/2013 concerned, the plaintiffs have deliberately mentioned the name of defendant No.4 incorrectly. Averments of para 3 of the plant that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the employees of the Postal Department are true and the defendant No.4 has no knowledge about the plaintiff No.3. The defendant No.4 is not aware about averments of para 4 to 6 of the plaint. Averments of para 7 of the plaint are false and denied. Averments of para 8 to 10 are false and denied. In fact, on 27.01.2012, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from defendant No.4 by executing cash receipt in front of witnesses. But now, they have not repaid the said loan amount. When in last week of December 2012, the defendant had approached the plaintiffs to seek loan, he sought another 6 months' time. But, when the again defendant No.4 approached the first plaintiff on 26.05.2013, he asked that the fourth defendant to come on 15.10.2013 and when again the defendant No.4 approached the first plaintiff on 15.10.2013, he again sought one week's of time. Thereafter also, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have not repaid the loan amount and the first plaintiff Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.8442/2013 threatened the fourth defendant. At that time, the defendant No.4 filed police complaint. At the time of filing the complaint only, the fourth defendant came to know that with an intention to defeat the fourth defendant, the plaintiffs have filed police complaint. On 2.11.2013, there was a meeting convened to resolve the issues - during which, the plaintiffs have sought apology for the mistake and delay in repayment of loan and agreed to repay the loan amount on 16.12.2014 and on 16.12.2014, the defendant No.4 approached the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, but they refused to repay the loan amount - because of which, the defendant No.4 has filed a Civil Suit in O.S No.81/2015 in Devanahalli Court - which is pending for adjudication. Therefore, the plaintiffs have created false story alleged in para 8 to 10 of the plaint only to avoid liability. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the above facts, this Court framed the following -
Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.8442/2013
ISSUES
(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that as plaintiffs questioned the defendant No.4 about forged stamp papers and refused to pay the exorbitant interest on loan borrowed by them from defendants No. 1 to 3 on 04.10.2013, defendant No.4 with other four persons came to plaintiffs' house scolded the plaintiffs in filthy language stating that "ಸಸಲಸ ತಗಗಗಗತರಸ, ವಸಪಸಸಸ ಕಗಗಡಗಗದಲಲ , ನಮಮ ದಸಡಡಲಲ ಮಜಸ ಮಸಡಸತತಗರಸ, ಬಗಗಗಳಮಗನಗ" in front of the plaintiffs' neighbors and colleagues - thereby defendant No.1 to 4 have defamed the plaintiffs?
(2) Whether plaintiffs prove that defendants have tried to interfere with the personal and day to day activities of the plaintiffs?
(3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for damages and permanent injunction as claimed?
(4) What order or decree?
Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.8442/2013
5. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.9 on behalf of the plaintiffs.
6. On the other hand, the defendant No.4 himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D.1 to D.8 on behalf of the defendants.
7. Heard arguments.
8. My findings on the above Issues are as under -
ISSUE No.1 - Negative;
ISSUE No.2 - Negative;
ISSUE No.3 - Negative;
ISSUE No.4 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
9. ISSUE NOs.1 TO 3 : Since all these Issues are inter-related with each other, they are being taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetitive discussion of facts.
Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.8442/2013
10. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from defendants No.1 to 3 for interest at the rate of 2 per cent and they were regularly paying interest; but in the last year, defendants have raised the rate of interest from 2 per cent to 3 per cent and without any alternative, the plaintiffs have agreed for the same and continued to pay interest at the rate of 3 per cent; in September, the plaintiffs have repaid Rs.1,50,000/- and assured to repay the entire amount in January, 2014 and they requested the defendants Nos.1 to 3 to return the On Demand Promissory Note, - but the defendants have refused for the same and they have stated that they will return the same at the time of final settlement; the defendant No.4 is the son-in-law of the defendants Nos.1 to 3 and he has created forged stamp papers and threatening the plaintiffs to pay Rs.5,00,000/-; when the plaintiffs questioned the same, he states that they calculated the rate of interest in Meter Baddi and amount will be more than Rs.5,00,000/-; when the plaintiffs have not yielded to the demand made by defendant No.4, the defendant No.4 and other 7 to 8 Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.8442/2013 persons came near the house of the plaintiffs and threatened the plaintiffs stating that they will kill the plaintiffs and throw away from the city and even they manhandled the first plaintiff; again on 04.10.2013, the defendant No.4 along with four persons came near the office of the first plaintiff; they threatened the first plaintiff and they also defamed the plaintiffs in front of their neighbors and colleagues; at that time, the defendant No.4 abused the first plaintiff in filthy language using the words "ಸಸಲಸ ತಗಗಗಗತರಸ, ವಸಪಸಸಸ ಕಗಗಡಗಗದಲಲ , ನಮಮ ದಸಡಡಲಲ ಮಜಸ ಮಸಡಸತತಗರಸ, ಬಗಗಗಳಮಗನಗ". Since the said incident was happened in front of the public and even the defendants abused the plaintiffs in spite of the fact that they promised to clear the loan; the plaintiffs and their daughter have afraid of coming out of the house and to do their day-to-day activities and they filed complaint with the police and therefore, plaintiffs are contained to file the present suit seeking damages and permanent injunction against the defendants.
11. In this case, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are placed ex-parte and only contesting defendant is the Cont'd..
- 12 - O.S. No.8442/2013 defendant No.4. It is the contention of the defendant No.4 that the plaintiffs have filed this suit on false and baseless averments; the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands by suppressing the true facts; the plaintiffs have deliberately mentioned the name of defendant No.4 incorrectly; in fact, on 27.1.2012, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from defendant No.4 by executing cash receipt in front of witnesses; but now, they have not repaid the said loan amount and when the defendant No.4 approached the plaintiffs to seek repayment of loan, time was taken to repay the same, but not repaid and instead the plaintiffs have threatened the defendant No.4 of filing police complaint against the defendant No.4 and therefore, the defendant No.4 filed police complaint - during which time, the fourth defendant came to know that with an intention to defeat the fourth defendant, the plaintiffs have filed police complaint; on 2.11.2013, there was a meeting convened to resolve the issues - during which, the plaintiffs have sought apology for the mistake and delay in repayment of loan and agreed to repay the loan amount on Cont'd..
- 13 - O.S. No.8442/2013 16.12.2014 and on 16.12.2014, the defendant No.4 approached the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, but they refused to repay the loan amount - because of which, the defendant No.4 has filed a Civil Suit in O.S No.81/2015 in Devanahalli Court - which is pending for adjudication and in retaliation, the plaintiffs have filed the present false suit by creating a false story.
12. During arguments also, the Counsel for the plaintiffs as well as the defendant No.4 have argued in support of their respective sides substantiating their claims.
13. During evidence, P.W.1, who is the first plaintiff, has filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of evidence reiterating the facts alleged in the plaint and in support of the case of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 has produced and got marked certain documents such as complaints filed with the police, endorsement issued by the Hulimavu police, certified copies of the written statement, evidence of P.W.1 and judgment dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Devanahalli in O.S. No.81/2015 - which is the suit filed Cont'd..
- 14 - O.S. No.8442/2013 by the defendant No.4 herein against the plaintiffs 1 and 2 allowing the claim of the plaintiff - who is the defendant No.4 herein, certified copy of the application filed in O.S. No.8/2014 on the file of the Civil Judge, Devanahalli under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant No.4 against the plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein seeking directions to the defendants - who are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein - to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant No.4 with interest - marked as per Exs.P1 to P.9 - from which, it clearly appears that all is not well with the plaintiffs and the defendant No.4 and that there are certain disputes between them touching money transaction - which has necessitated both the parties to the suit to file complaints and counter-complaints against each other in the police station and that even the suit filed by the defendant No.4 against the plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein in the Court at Devanahalli is decreed in favour of the defendant No.4 directing the plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein to repay the amount to the defendant No.4. In the cross- examination of P.W.1, it is elicited that there exist a money transaction between the defendant No.4 and the Cont'd..
- 15 - O.S. No.8442/2013 plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein and that the plaintiffs have clearly admitted in the cross-examination about filing of the suit by the defendant No.4 against the plaintiffs seeking repayment of loan and even about the said suit decreeing against the plaintiffs herein.
14. On the other hand, the defendant No.4 has adduced evidence as D.W.1 reiterating the stand taken by him in the written statement and also produced certain documents such as certified copies of plaint, affidavit, judgment and decree in O.S. No.81/2014 filed by him against the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 herein, consideration receipt issued by the plaintiffs 1 and 2, complaint filed with the police and the endorsement and also certified copies of Execution Case, affidavit and the order sheet in Execution Case No.38/2001 filed by the defendant No.4 against the plaintiffs herein - which are marked as per Exs.D.1 to D.8.
15. When such being the situation, upon perusal of the facts and circumstance of the case, evidence tendered and the documents adduced by both the sides in support of their respective contentions, it is clearly Cont'd..
- 16 - O.S. No.8442/2013 appears that the the contention of the defendant No.4 that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendant No.4 in retaliation to filing of the suit and obtaining decree against them, holds water and it cannot be easily brushed aside. There are no any cogent and clear evidence or documents produced on behalf plaintiffs to over turn the case of the defendant No.4. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to substantiate their claim for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in their personal life; to retrain the defendants from abusing the plaintiffs in any place and for awarding damages etc., by producing clear and cogent evidence to substantiate their claim. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs claimed, which, in the opinion of the Court, are in the nature of blanket reliefs. Hence, Issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered as above.
16. ISSUE No.4 : For my reasons and discussion on the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following -
Cont'd..
- 17 - O.S. No.8442/2013
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 21st day of January, 2023.) (MALLANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : K.C. Govindappa 31-10-2018
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Exs.P.1 & 2 : Police complaints dated: 30.10.2013 Ex.P.3 : Police complaint dated: 08.11.2013 Ex.P.4 : Endorsement dated: 9.12.20132 Ex.P.5 : Postal receipt Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Judgment in O.S No.81/2015 Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S No.81/2015 Cont'd..
- 18 - O.S. No.8442/2013
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of written statement in O.S
No.81/2015
Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of evidence of PW.1 in O.S
No.81/2015
3. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
D.W.1 : Poodur Vijayraju 07-09-2021
4.DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of plaint on O.S No.81/2014 Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of written statement in O.S No.81/2014 Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of Judgment in O.S No.81/2015 Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of Decree in O.S No.81/2015 Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of cash receipt Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of acknowledgment issued by police Ex.D.7 : Certified copy of petition in EX No.38/2021 Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of order sheet in EX No.38/2021 (MALLANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..