- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:338 RSA No. 100325 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100325 OF 2023 (MON-) BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. YENKAPPA KURUBARA, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, /O. NARASAPUR - 583237 TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BALAGOUDA A. PATIL AND SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATES) AND: SRI. VIRUPANNA S/O. BASANNA HALI, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. KESARAHATTI - 583227 TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL, SITTING AT GANGAVATHI IN R.A.NO.47/2022 DISMISSING THE APPEAL CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GANGAVATHI IN O.S.NO.115/2018 DATED 20.07.2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.10 16:43:38 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:338 RSA No. 100325 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is preferred by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2003 in R.A.No.47/2022 on the file of the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (Sitting at Gangavati), (for short “the First Appellate Court”) confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2022 in O.S.No.115/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi (for short “the Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has approached the plaintiff for financial assistance to meet his household expenses and for development of land and accordingly, the plaintiff has paid ₹8,00,000/- as loan amount to the defendant on 20.08.2017. Promissory note was also executed by the parties stating about the payment of interest @ 2% per month. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has made a claim for repayment of the loan, however - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:338 RSA No. 100325 of 2023 the defendant has failed to repay the loan amount and accordingly, the plaintiff has issued notice to the defendant on 25.05.2018 calling upon the defendant to repay the loan amount with accrued interest. In spite of the notice, the defendant could not repay the loan amount nor replied to the notice issued by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.115/2018 seeking recovery of ₹10,58,000/- with interest @ 2% per month from the date of the suit till its realization. 3.1. On service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the fact of receiving loan amount from the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the defendant that he did not have any family necessity to borrow such a huge amount of ₹8,00,000/- from the plaintiff and accordingly, stated that the plaintiff has created a promissory note and forged the signature of the defendant in the said promissory note, and as such, sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on pleadings on record has framed issued for consideration. In order to establish his case, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:338 RSA No. 100325 of 2023 the plaintiff has examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The defendant has examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendant. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 20.07.2022 decreed the suit and directed the defendant to pay principal loan amount of ₹8,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 2% per month from the date of execution of the promissory note till the date of suit and also interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till its realization. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred R.A.No.47/2022 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 31.01.2023 dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.115/2018. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard Sri. Balagouda A Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. K.Anandkumar learned counsel appearing for the respondent. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:338 RSA No. 100325 of 2023 5. Sri. Balagouda A Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below have committed an error in accepting the evidence of the plaintiff only and decreed the suit based on Ex.P1, without considering the fact that the plaintiff has admitted in evidence as to there was no reason for the plaintiff to pay ₹8,00,000/- to the defendant. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the plaintiff ought to have secured licence under the provisions of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 to lend money in favour of the defendant and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. K. Anandkumar, appearing for the respondent/plaintiff justifies the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has borrowed ₹8,00,000/- for his family necessity and in this regard, executed the promissory note at Ex.P1. It is also forthcoming from the findings recorded by the Trial Court that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:338 RSA No. 100325 of 2023 Ex.P1 by adducing evidence of PW2 and PW3. That apart, the plaintiff has caused notice dated 25.05.2018 (Ex.P2) calling upon the defendant to repay the loan amount, however, the said notice was not replied by the defendant. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Trial Court, I am of the view that the reason assigned by the Trial Court is just and proper. Though the leaned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this Court with regard to Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961, however, the defendant has not raised such a plea in the written statement and therefore, the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is also forthcoming from Ex.P1 that the appellant herein has put his signature as well as thumb impression as per Ex.P1(c). In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:338 RSA No. 100325 of 2023 appellant herein has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 8. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34