Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1510 (KAR)

V. Parushuramappa v. Chigateri Ramana Gauda

2022-11-29

JYOTI MULIMANI

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.Santosh B.Mane., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde., for respondent have appeared in person. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The facts, in brief, are these: It is stated that the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff a hand loan of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for his family's necessities and his immediate needs. Further, the defendant availed the said loan of Rs.50,000.00(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by executing a demand promissory note on 21/4/2015 in favor of the plaintiff and agreed to pay interest at 24% per annum on the amount availed. It is averred that after availing of the loan, the defendant did not repay the amount. The plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the loan amount and interest many times. He issued a lawyer's notice dtd. 22/4/2017 and the same was served to the defendant; there was no reply from him. The defendant was due to pay an amount of Rs.75,800.00 (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand and Eight Hundred only) inclusive of interest and miscellaneous charges. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to take shelter under the Court of law and accordingly filed a suit for recovery of money. After service of summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed a written statement. The defendant denied the plaint averments. He contended that he is an agriculturist and he is residing at Nandibevur Village in Hararapanahalli Taluk. There was no necessity to get a loan from the plaintiff. He denied signatures on the alleged promissory note. He contended that the plaintiff's witnesses and scribe of the suit pronote colluded with each other, created a suit promissory note, and filed a false suit against him just to enrich themselves. The defendant specifically contended that he has not received any amount from the plaintiff as mentioned in the pronote. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in law. The plaintiff is a money lender without a money lending license as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed. Among other grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: ISSUES 1. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in law. The plaintiff is a money lender without a money lending license as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed. Among other grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant borrowed a loan of Rs.50,000.00 and agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of Rs.20.00% p.a. and executed the promissory note on the same day? 2. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has created and concocted the suit documents? 3. Whether the defendant proves that the Court fee and valuation paid by the plaintiff is not proper? 4. Whether the defendant is entitled to recover the suit claim amount? 5. What order or decree? To substantiate the said contentions, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and three witnesses as PW2 to 4 and produced four documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and produced one document marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.1(a). On the trial of the action, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. The order of dismissal is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition on various grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have urged several contentions. 5. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the petition papers and records with care. The points which require consideration are: 1) Whether there is a loan transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant? 2) Whether the defendant executed an On Demand Promissory Note? The issue involved in the case lies on a very narrow compass. The small cause case giving rise to this petition was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money. Since the issue involved is related to Negotiable Instruments, let us quickly glance the law relating to Negotiable Instruments. 2) Whether the defendant executed an On Demand Promissory Note? The issue involved in the case lies on a very narrow compass. The small cause case giving rise to this petition was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money. Since the issue involved is related to Negotiable Instruments, let us quickly glance the law relating to Negotiable Instruments. The law relating to Negotiable Instruments is not the law of one country or one nation; it is the law of the commercial world in general, for it consists of "certain principles of equity and usages of trade which general convenience and commonsense of justice had established to regulate the dealing of merchants and mariners in all the commercial countries of the civilized world". The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short 'the Act') confines itself only to promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques, the three kinds of negotiable instruments most in common use. A Negotiable Instrument is defined by the Act to be a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to the bearer. The definition is the result of an amendment by Act VIII of 1919. Before the amendment, it was necessary for instruments to be negotiable that they should contain words of negotiability such as 'order' or 'bearer' so that an instrument drawn payable to a specified was not negotiable. A "promissory note" is an instrument in writing (not being a bank note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or the bearer of the instrument. To fulfill the definition given the document must conform to the following requirements:- 1) It must be in writing and signed by the maker. 2) It must contain an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money only, and nothing more. 3) It must be payable on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time. 4) It must be payable to, or to the order of a specified person or the bearer. Bearing these principles in mind, let me see what facts I have here. 3) It must be payable on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time. 4) It must be payable to, or to the order of a specified person or the bearer. Bearing these principles in mind, let me see what facts I have here. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) from him on 21/4/2015 and executed an On-Demand Promissory Note and consideration receipt in his favor and agreed to repay the loan money with interest at 24% per annum. On the other hand, the defendant denied the transaction with the plaintiff; also denied the execution of promissory note. To substantiate the contention, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He relied upon a document i.e., a Promissory Note. In the chief Examination, he stated that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) from him. I may extract the relevant portion of the chief examination as under: It is pivotal to note that the defendant denied his signature on the alleged Promissory Note and the plaintiff was crossexamined in this regard. The relevant part of the crossexamination reads as under. It further noticed that the defendant specifically contended that he signs in English and to prove his contention he produced the driving license Ex.D.1. Ex.P.1 is Promissory Note. It is dtd. 21/4/2015. Perused the same with care and minutely. When I look at the Promissory Note, four adhesive revenue stamps of Re.1/- denomination is pasted on the Promissory Note. On the revenue stamps, there are two signatures; one more signature is below the revenue stamps. A bare perusal of the signature would show that the first signature reads C.RAMAGADDA, the second as C.RAMANADDA and the third one as C.RAMAGOUDDI. As already noted above, the defendant specifically denied the signature on the Promissory Note. It is pivotal to note that in the promissory note the signatures are in English and the name is written in three different styles. This is one of the circumstances to disbelieve the Promissory Note. It is further interesting to note that the plaintiff has deposed that all the attesting witnesses have signed with one pen. But a cursory look at the promissory note depicts otherwise. In the promissory note, three witnesses appear to have put their signatures and they are in different inks. This is one of the circumstances to disbelieve the Promissory Note. It is further interesting to note that the plaintiff has deposed that all the attesting witnesses have signed with one pen. But a cursory look at the promissory note depicts otherwise. In the promissory note, three witnesses appear to have put their signatures and they are in different inks. One signature is in black ink and the other two are in blue ink. This also raises a doubt about the genuineness of the execution of the Promissory Note. The material evidence on record in proof of Ex.P.1 raises a bonafide doubt/dispute about the genuineness of the promissory Note. Incidentally, I may also venture to say that it was in the year 2003, India witnessed/saw a scam like never before. One may remember clearly that the Government of the day in 2003 had decided to go ahead and ban both revenue stamps and fake stamp papers only because the fake papers had flooded the market to such an extent that it was unable to control the menace. In the present case, the alleged transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant took place in the year 2015. The defendant denied the promissory note. In view of the ban of revenue stamps in Karnataka w.e.f August 2003, an adhesive revenue stamp of denomination of Re.1/- could not have been pasted and made use of the promissory note. This is also one of the circumstances to disbelieve the execution and genuineness of the promissory note. From the above, the following inference can be drawn: a) The defendant never approached the plaintiff for money; b) The plaintiff has not produced concrete documentary evidence regarding money paid to the defendant like, Demand Draft, Cheque, Bank Transfer, etc., The above-mentioned circumstances would negate the claim of the plaintiff. I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the defendant needed money and he borrowed the money from him by executing a Promissory Note. I may venture to say that the plaintiff initiated a false action against the defendant in the year 2015. The learned Judge has cared to look into the matter and rightly concluded that the plaintiff has failed to prove the promissory Note. In my view, the learned Judge is justified in concluding so, because when I look at it as indicated above, there are certain discrepancies. The learned Judge has cared to look into the matter and rightly concluded that the plaintiff has failed to prove the promissory Note. In my view, the learned Judge is justified in concluding so, because when I look at it as indicated above, there are certain discrepancies. Hence, it is hard to believe the contention of the plaintiff about the execution of the Demand Promissory note. In the last resort, learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10-A read with Sec. 151 of CPC to send the defendant's signature on Ex.P.1(a) (b) and (c) with the signature of the defendant which is to be taken before the Court in 'KANNADA' to experts for comparison purpose through scientific investigation. The Trial Court on 5th of March 2020 rejected the application. Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath., learned counsel in presenting his argument strenuously urged that the rejection of the application is bad, hence it requires consideration by this Court. Considered the submission and pursued the application, statement of objections, and the order passed on the application. Suffice it to note that the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10-A of CPC is numbered I.A.No.6. The plaintiff Parashuramappa has sworn to the affidavit. In the affidavit, he states that the Respondent - defendant put his signature on the promissory Note in the presence of the attestor in "KANNADA', whereas in the vakalth and in the written statement he put his choate signature in English like a Gazetted Officer. The signature on the vakalth and written statement are not the admitted signature of the Respondent -defendant. He also stated that the Respondent - defendant intentionally created a choate signature in English on the vakalth and written statement to deny his KANNADA signature on the PROMISSORY Note. It is interesting to note that the plaintiff has also said that KANNADA signatures of the defendant on the Promissory Note is to be sent to experts for comparison. In my view, the say of the plaintiff must necessarily fail for the simple reason that plaintiff is not clear about his say in the matter. A cursory look at the alleged Promissory Note would depict that the alleged signatures of the defendant are written in English, but the reasons given in the affidavit of the plaintiff show that they are in KANNADA. A cursory look at the alleged Promissory Note would depict that the alleged signatures of the defendant are written in English, but the reasons given in the affidavit of the plaintiff show that they are in KANNADA. I may venture to say that it is not so. Hence, the argument about the application is satisfactorily hopeless. I think the contention of the plaintiff must fail. On facts and in all the circumstances of the case, it would be improper to hold that the defendant is liable to pay the amount as claimed by the plaintiff. To summarize, I would hold that the learned Judge is justified is dismissing the suit. For the reasons set out above, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.