Bangalore District Court
Mukul Samar vs Gangaraju on 17 January, 2026
KABC010333912023
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE : AT BANGALORE [CCH-09]
:PRESENT:
SMT. SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI, B.A.,LL.B.(Hons.),
LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
C/C XXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated this the 17th day of January 2026
O.S. No.8135/2023
PLAINTIFF : Mukul Samar
S/o. Late. Chandramohan Singh,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at # Olive Tower B-302,
Park West Apartment,
No.1/1-49, Hoskere Road,
Binny Pet, Bengaluru - 560023.
(By Sri. Thimmanna, Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANT : Gangaraju
S/o. Kempaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
OS No.8135/2023
2
Residing at Lakkenahalli Hatti,
Channenahalli Post,
Bellavi Hobli,
Tumakur Taluk and District.
(By Sri.N.K., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the Suit 13.12.2023
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Money Suit
declaration & possession, suit
for injunction)
Date of commencement of 13.01.2025
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 17.01.2026
was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 10 27
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,18,415/- along with current and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit till date of payment.
OS No.8135/2023 3
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are :
The defendant has approached the plaintiff in first week of January 2023 through a common person and offered to sell his land bearing Sy.No.101, measuring 2 acres including 6 guntas of karab land of Appinayanakanahatti Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk for a sum of Rs.41,11,111/- per acre and after deduction of 6 guntas of karab land, the remaining land 1 acre 34 guntas was valued at Rs.76,05,555/-. The plaintiff also agreed to purchase the said property with condition that the defendant has to bring all his family members for registration of sale and must provide the documents pertaining the schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.5.151/- as token advance amount.
Thereafter, the defendant demanded money as advance amount for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Pursuant to the request the plaintiff has transferred a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from Account No.564802010003321 through a cheque OS No.8135/2023 4 bearing No.10036886 dated 04.01.2023 drawn on Union Bank of India, Basaveshwara Nagar Branch, Bengaluru to the defendant Account No.64024125982 maintained with State Bank of India, Bellavi Branch, Tumkur District. Further it is contended that, the defendant has also agreed to return the earnest money received by him from the plaintiff with interest at 24% per annum immediately in case the defendant failed to perform his part of contact. It is averred that though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract but due to breach of the oral agreement by the defendant the plaintiff decided to cancel the agreement and informed the defendant through phone call. Thereafter, the plaintiff met the defendant at Bengaluru and asked him to return the earnest money received by the defendant with interest at the rate of 24% per annum within 15 days. After 15 days when the plaintiff called for repayment of the earnest money, the defendant has started narrating concocted stories and went on OS No.8135/2023 5 postponing the same. Hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,05,151/- with 24% interest from 04.01.2023 to 19.08.2023 in Rs.75,398.97/- within 15 days and upon service of notice the defendant issued untenable and unbelievable reply on 25.09.2023 stating that, defendant helped the plaintiff to purchase the land and the defendant made several attempts to get the land to plaintiff and he has paid the advance to the land owner in the month of November 2022 on behalf of the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff had returned the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant. Upon receiving the untenable reply of the defendant, the plaintiff lodged a complaint with jurisdictional police but the jurisdictional police have issued an endorsement stating that, the defendant would like to settle the matter in court of law and subsequently, he has sold the schedule property to one Somashekar. Hence, he has filed the present suit.
OS No.8135/2023 6
3. After service of summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written-statement denying each and every averments of the plaint and contended that, the plaintiff after becoming acquainted with the defendant during 2020 requested the defendant to help him for purchase of land near by the village of the defendant. After negotiations with the land owner, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the land at Vasantanaraspura village during November 2022 and owner of the said land had requested to pay the advance amount, therefore, the plaintiff had requested the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- go give it as advance amount to the owner of the said land on his behalf After two days the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and plaintiff had also promised to pay the said amount on or before 04.01.2023. Accordingly the plaintiff has transferred a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant's account. Therefore, the amount paid by the plaintiff is a debt OS No.8135/2023 7 amount due to the defendant, but the plaintiff has mis- used the same and filed filed present suit to grab the money from the defendant.
4. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The plaintiff has examined another witness by name Basavaraju M.M. and closed his side.
Inspite several opportunities the defendant has failed to adduce evidence hence, the defendant's evidence is taken as nil and posted for arguments.
5. In view of the rival contentions raised by the plaintiff and the defendant, the following Issues have been framed by my Predecessor-in-Office:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant through oral agreement agreed to execute a sale deed in respect of land bearing survey No.101, measuring 2 acres 6 guntas situated at OS No.8135/2023 8 Appinayakana Hatti Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumakur Taluk and received a sum of Rs.5,05,151/- as earnest money?
2. Whether the defendant proves that, the amount credited from the account of plaintiff was towards repayment of advance paid by the defendant on behalf of plaintiff for the purchase of land at Vasanthapura Village in the month of November 2022 as alleged in written-statement?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim with interest as sought for in the suit?
4. What Decree or Order?
6. Heard. Perused the records.
7. My findings to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No 3 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per the final order
for the following:
OS No.8135/2023
9
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 to 3: In order to prove the case, the the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got examined another witness Basavaraju M.M. as PW.2 who is acquittance with both the plaintiff and he defendant. The plaintiff in order to prove his defence got marked Ex.P.1 to P.5 documents. Ex.P. 1 is the RTC extract of Sy.No.101 of Appinayakanahatti; Ex.P. 2 is the Bank Statement of Union Bank of India; Ex.P. 3 is the Legal Notice dated 19.08.2023; Ex.P. 4 is the Endorsement; Ex.P.4(a) is the signature of defendant; Ex.P. 5 is the Police Complaint dated 12.10.2023 and Ex.P. 6 is the Endorsement issued by the police dated 02.11.2023.
9. The defendant has appeared before the Court and has contested the suit claim by filing written statement, but he has not challenged the evidence of the witness of the plaintiff by cross-examining the PW.1& 2 and the documents produced by the plaintiff. Besides the OS No.8135/2023 10 defendant has not let in any independent evidence to prove his defense. It is pertinent to note that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff has ` remained unchallenged.
10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the defendant is liable for the suit claim. It is material to note that in para no.9 of the written-statement of defendant it is contended that the plaintiff had requested the defendant to pay advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the owner of the said land on behalf of the plaintiff with a promise to repay the same on or before 04.01.2023 and accordingly, the plaintiff has transferred a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant's Account bearing No.64024125985 and in this behalf it is contended the amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant's account is the debt amount due to the defendant. Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person OS No.8135/2023 11 who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. If at all the the defendant had proved his defense then he would have certainly discharged his burden but the defendant has not made any endeavor to discharge the burden.
11. Upon a careful scrutiny of the materials on record it is evident that the defendant has categorically admitted the receipt of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to his account from the plaintiff's account in written statement but he has disputed the transaction and consequently the initial burden which rested upon the plaintiff to prove the transfer of Rs.5,00,000 stands discharged in view of the admission of the defendant. The admission of the defendant in the written statement constitutes judicial admission constituting the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, OS No.8135/2023 12 1872. In addition to the above fact, the plaintiff in order to prove his case has produced Ex.P2 - Statement of Account of Union Bank of India wherein, it is shown that on 04.01.2023 an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred to defendant's account through RTGS . Besides the plaintiff has also relied upon Ex.P1- the digital copy of the RTC extract of Sy.No.101 measuring 1 Acre 34 guntas of Appinayakannahatti, Tumkur District reflecting the name of Gangaraju and Ex.P4 - the handwritten acknowledgment of Gangaraju wherein the defendant has acknowledged the sale transaction with the plaintiff in relation to Sy. No.101 for the sale consideration of Rs 41, 11,111/- per acre and further admitted the receipt of Rs. 5151/- . The evidence of PW1 demonstrates that an amount of Rs. 5,05,151/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant towards the sale transaction with the defendant for the purchase of 2 acres of land ( excluding the karab land ) in Sy. No.101 of Appinayakannahatti, Tumkur District. PW2 - Mr. OS No.8135/2023 13 Basavaraju S/o. Mahalingappa has deposed on behalf of the plaintiff stating that he has personal knowledge of the transaction and he has participated in the discussions and negotiations. PW2 has further deposed that he had accompanied the plaintiff for site inspection and further the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.. 5, 05151/- to the defendant to wards the sale transaction and further the defendant had agreed to return the amount to the plaintiff with 24% per annum in the event he failed to fulfill his part of the contract. It is evident from the evidence of PW2 that the signature of the defendant on Ex.P4 is identified by him. The oral and documentary evidence clearly makes it evident that a sum of Rs. 5,05,151/- was paid to the defendant to wards the sale transaction. But the evidence of the plaintiff has not been challenged. In Kunwar vs. State of U.P., 1993 (3) AWC 1305 (All--D.B.), it is held that where a particular material assertion is made by a witness in his examination- in-chief and the witness is not cross-examined in respect of OS No.8135/2023 14 that assertion, it will be taken that the party affected had admitted the truth of that assertion. Ex.P. 5 which is the Police Complaint dated 12.10.2023 and Ex.P. 6 which is the Endorsement issued by the police dated 02.11.2023 further prove that the plaintiff had even approached the jurisdictional police station seeking aid . Therefore the non cross examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff will be taken that the defendant has admitted the truth of that assertion.
12. The overall evidence on record denotes that the amount of Rs.. 5, 05151/- was paid by the plaintiff towards the sale transaction for the purchase of the land and further the defendant had failed to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated period by refusing to bring his family members for registration and consequently the plaintiff has canceled the agreement of sale with the defendant. It is evident that from the materials on record the defendant upon being intimated of the cancellation of OS No.8135/2023 15 the agreement had failed to return the earnest amount with interest @ 24% p.m.
13. It is relevant to note that Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam 2023 provides : Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Section 105 of the said Act provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. The evidence on record denotes that the plaintiff has discharged the initial burden by producing oral and documentary evidence on the principles of preponderance of probability. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. On the contrary the defendant in order to prove his defence has not cross examined or has produced any cogent material to OS No.8135/2023 16 substantiate the same. The evidence of PW1 & PW2 is consistent and narrate the events described in the plaint and the defendant has not stepped into the witness box to give his version of facts which in view of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act ( Now Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) read with illustration (g) thereto which leads to an adverse inference that if the defendant had examined himself his evidence would have been unfavorable to him and thus an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant if he does not present himself for cross examination and refuses to enter witness box in order to refute the allegations made against him or to support his pleadings as taken in the written statement and this view is fortified from the judgments in Ramesh Kumar v. Furu Ram (2011) 8 SCC 613 and Iqbal Basith v. N.Subbalakshmi and another, (2021)2 SCC 718. Thus for all the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim of Rs. 505151/- .
OS No.8135/2023 17
14. The plaintiff has sought presuit interest @ 24% p.a. from 4.1.2023 till the date of suit on suit claim of Rs. 505151/- but the plaintiff has not produced any document/ agreement on the basis of which the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 24 % as sought in the prayer column. At this stage it is relevant to refer to Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978.
Section 3 -Power of court to allow interest.--(1) In any proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person making such claim, as the case may be, at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, for the whole or part of the following period, that is to say,--
(a) if the proceedings relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, then, from the date when the debt is payable to the date of institution of the proceedings;
(b) if the proceedings do not relate to any such debt, then, from the date mentioned in this regard in a written notice given by the person entitled or the person making the claim to the person liable that interest will be claimed, to the date of institution of the proceedings:
Provided that where the amount of the debt or damages has been repaid before the institution of the proceedings, interest shall not be allowed under this section for the period after such repayment.
OS No.8135/2023 18
15. From the above provision it is pellucid that the parties are entitled to claim presuit interest in the event of existence of agreement or written notice. In the above case even though there is no written agreement between the parties to demonstrate the justification for the claim of presuit interest, the legal notice at Ex. .P3 establishes that the plaintiff had made a claim of pre suit interest prior to the institution of the suit itself by specifically claiming pre suit interest commencing from 4.1.2023 through his legal notice issued to the defendant in terms of Ex.P3 under Section 3 1(b) of the Interest Act, 1978 and therefore in this background there is no legal impediment to hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the pre suit interest from 4.1.2023 till the date of the suit i.e. 12.12.2023.( one day prior to the suit)
16. In so far as the claim for future interest on the suit claim is considered. It is apt to refer to Section 34 CPC:
OS No.8135/2023 19 Section 34 of C.P.C., which reads as under:
"34. INTEREST: (1) Where and insofar as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:
Explanation I. - *** Explanation II. - For the purposes of this Section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability."
In the case of M/S. MEENAKSHI
PHARMA DISTRIBUTORS, BENGALURU Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
reported in 1999 (2) KLJ 164, it has been held that transaction is to be held commercial only if it is connected with industry, trade or business of the judgment debtor under money decree and not of the decree holder.
OS No.8135/2023 20
17. In the light of the above statutory principles and legal precedent, it can be deduced that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is one for execution of sale deed and not a commercial transaction connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability. Therefore, it is just and necessary to impose interest at the rate of 6 % interest per annum from the date of suit till its realization. Hence, in view of the above discussions Issue Nos.1 & 3 are answered in the Affirmative and partly in the Affirmative respectively and Issue No.2 is answered in the Negative.
18. ISSUE No.4 :- In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 to 7, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in part with costs.
The defendant is liable to pay to pay a sum of Rs.5,05,151/- with pre suit OS No.8135/2023 21 interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the above amount from 04.01.2023 till 12.12.2023 and further with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till its realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of January 2026 ).
( Sumangala Chakalabbi ) C/C XXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
Plaintiff's side: P.W.1 - Mukul Samar - 13.01.2025 P.W.2 - Basavaraju M.M Defendant's side: NIL.
List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiffs' side :
OS No.8135/2023 22 Ex.P. 1 RTC extract of Sy.No.101 of Appinayakanahatti.
Ex.P. 2 Bank Statement of Union Bank of India
Ex.P. 3 Legal Notice dated 19.08.2023
Ex.P. 4 Endorsement
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of defendant
Ex.P. 5 Police Complaint dated 12.10.2023.
Ex.P. 6 Endorsement issued by the police dated
02.11.2023
b) Defendant's side : NIL.
( Sumangala Chakalabbi )
C/C XXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.