- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 613 OF 2022 (MON) BETWEEN: VISHWANATHA, S/O. VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT PEDDATUMKEPALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAVEEN J.N, ADVOCATE) AND: R. JAYARAMA REDDY S/O. RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT PEDDATUMKEPAIL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.01.2022 PASSED IN RA No.56/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BAGEPALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.04.2021 PASSED IN OS No.162/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGEPALLI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Naveen J.N., learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Defendant is the appellant challenging the decree passed in O.S.No.162/2015 confirmed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.56/2021. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1. Respondent – R.Jayarama Reddy filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of the money based on an ‘on demand promissory note’. 3.2. Plaint averments would reveal that plaintiff had lent a sum of Rs.50,000/- and defendant borrowed the same by executing the on demand promissory note and consideration receipt and agreed to repay the loan with interest at 2% per month. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 3.3. When the defendant failed to pay the amount due under on demand promissory note, plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the money. 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance, engaged the counsel and filed detailed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and also contended that he has not executed any on demand promissory note and consideration receipt. He even went to the extent of contending that there was no loan transaction and actually he has participated in the chit transaction and at that juncture, blank signatures were obtained on the on demand promissory note and consideration receipt which has been concocted by the plaintiff for the purpose of filing the false and frivolous suit and thus, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and plaintiff stepped into the witness box and got examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited two documents - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 namely on demand promissory note and consideration receipt vide Exs.P.1 and P.2. 6. Defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 but did not choose to place any documentary evidence on record. 7. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and has noted that defendant even went to the extent of denying the signature on the vakalath signed by him to engage his Advocate and following the principles of law enunciated in the case of K.S.Satyanarayana v. V.R.Narayana Rao reported in 1999 (6) SCC 104 and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.56/2021. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 in detail and noted that under Section 118(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, plaintiff enjoys the presumption as to the genuineness of on demand promissory note and consideration receipt and noting that there is no proper rebuttal evidence to rebut the presumption, applied the principles of law enunciated in the case of Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm and Others reported in (2008) 7 SCC 655 and also in the case of Rajendra Bajoria and Others v. Hemanth Kumar Jalan and Others reported in (2022) 12 SCC 641, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present second appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law: GROUNDS The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside on the ground that both the courts below failed to appreciate the facts - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 and circumstances of the case and wrongly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside on the ground that in a suit for recovery of money, the burden heavily lies on the plaintiff. The plaintiff except examining himself as PW1 has not examined any witnesses nor the plaintiff has examined any witnesses with respect to Ex.P1 and P2 to prove the money transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. The trial court entirely accepted the evidence of the PW1 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff which is not permissible in law as such in a suit for money transactions, the plaintiff has to prove transaction by way of independent witnesses. Such being the case, in the case on hand, except PW1, no independent witnesses nor witnesses to Ex.P1 and P2 were examined to prove the financial transactions between the parties. Hence the entire approach adopted by the courts below are bad in law and liable to be set aside. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside on the ground that the reasoning of the trial court for decreeing the suit that the defendant in his evidence has denied the signature in toto in Ex.P1 and P2 and also denied the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 signature in the vakalath. The trial court come to conclusion that the defendant denied the signature in the vakalath given to his counsel, it amounts to prove that there is a financial transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. The stray denial of the signature in the vakalath does not prove the financial transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. Hence the reasoning of the court below is without any basis and non-application of mind and liable to be set aside. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside on the ground that plaintiff has not examined the witnesses to Ex.P1 and P2. The witnesses to the Ex.P1 and P2 were present before the trial court. The plaintiff has not taken any steps to cross examine the witnesses to Ex.P1 and P2. Hence the witnesses to the Ex.P1 and P2 signed in the order sheet of the trial court and the trial court drawn adverse inference against the defendant that the defendant has managed the witnesses not to give evidence before the trial court. The said reasoning of the trial court is only misplaced on the ground that the witnesses were present on their own and not at the instance of the plaintiff or the defendant. Such being the case, it is the duty of the trial court record evidence of the witnesses by directing the counsel of the plaintiff and the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 defendant to cross examine the witnesses of Ex.P1 and P2. Instead of doing the same, the trial court simply obtained the signatures of the witnesses and sent back them and drawn adverse inference against the defendant that defendant has managed the witnesses not to give evidence before the trial court. Hence the trial court failed to perform its duties to record evidence of the witnesses of Ex.P1 and P2, on the other hand shifted the allegations against the defendant. Hence the entire approach adopted by the trial court is without application of mind and liable to be set aside. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside on the ground that except giving the reason that the defendant has denied the signature in the vakalath, both the courts below have not given any findings with respect of money transaction. Both the courts below have observed that a party who has given the vakalath to his counsel cannot deny his signature and have given much stress on the said issue instead of giving findings regarding the money transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside on the ground that the PW1 in his evidence has stated that he has not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 stated the names of father and also address of the witnesses in Ex.P1 and P2 and except self serving statement of PW1, nothing is elicited from his evidence regarding the financial transaction. Per contra the DW1 has given a statement that there is a chit transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff has obtained the signatures of the defendant at the time of chit transactions. The stray admission of the defendant he has admitted the signature in the written statement and denied his signature in his vakalath cannot be a ground to prove the financial transaction. Both the courts below unnecessarily parting upon the said issue did not consider the contentions of the defendant while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside on the ground that when the defendant has denied his signature in Ex.P1 and P2, the burden is shifted on the plaintiff to prove his case by way of independent witnesses. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has not discharged his burden. Hence the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are bad in law and liable to be set aside.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW “a) Whether the courts below are right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in the absence of examination of independent witnesses in a suit for recovery of money? b) Whether the courts below are right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff only relying upon the stray admission wherein the defendant denied his signature in the vakalath? c) Whether the courts below are right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff contrary to Order 16 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure?” 11. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that when there is a denial of the on demand promissory note by the defendant, plaintiff ought to have examined one of the witness to prove the genuineness of Exs.P.1 and 2. Non-examination of the witnesses to Exs.P.1 and 2 and disbelieving the oral testimony of D.W.1 has resulted in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 12. This Court did not deem it fit to issue the notice to respondent as case set up the defendant in the present appeal could have disposed of without hearing the respondent. 13. As such, this court bestowed its best attention to the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum and material placed on record in the light of the arguments put forward on behalf of the plaintiff. 14. In the case on hand, even though the defendant has denied the signature on the on demand promissory note and consideration receipt, in his very written statement, he has stated that he has executed blank on demand promissory note when he participated in the chit transaction. 15. In other words, genuineness of the on demand promissory note and consideration receipt is indirectly - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 admitted by the defendant/appellant. But according to him, those documents are executed during the course of chit transaction between him and the plaintiff. 16. To establish the said aspect of the matter, defendant has not furnished the details as to which chit transaction he participated; when was the said chit transaction; whether at all he has paid the chit amount. Inaction on the part of the defendant after coming to know about the filing of the suit especially after the receipt of summons and having engaged an Advocate in initiating any criminal proceedings against the plaintiff for misuse of the blank documents, exposes the hollowness in the case set up by the defendant. 17. Further, since the on demand promissory note being a negotiable instrument, having carried the initial presumption as to the amount lent, there was no necessity for the plaintiff to examine the witness to prove Exs.P.1 and 2 inasmuch as defendant himself as stated in his - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32619 RSA No. 613 of 2022 written statement that he has executed Exs.P.1 and P.2 in blank. 18. Further, the case of the defendant is properly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge inasmuch as defendant has gone to the extent of denying the signature in the vakalath whereby he has engaged the services of an Advocate. Oral testimony of such a person cannot be considered to deny the just claim of the plaintiff. 19. Therefore, the substantial questions of law raised and the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum are hardly sufficient to admit the matter for further consideration. 20. In view of the foregoing discussions, following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45/CT: BHK