- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492 CRP No. 100162 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100162 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B.M. VIRUPAKASHAIAH S/O. B.M. VEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC: COOLIE, C/O. VEERASHAIVAKANAVALI NEAR B.V. ARTS BASAVESHWARA, BAZAR H.B. HALLI, TALUKA H.B. HALLI, DIST BALARI-583212. 2. SRI. B. GANESH S/O. MUGAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE C/O. VEERASHAIVAKANAVALI NEAR B.V ARTS BASAVESHWARA, BAZAR H.B. HALLI, TALUKA H.B. HALLI-583212 DIST BALLARI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. UNKIHARINDRA S/O. LATE UNKISIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAMPASAGAR 2ND COONY, H.B. HALLI, TALUK H.B HALI DISTRICT BALLARI 583212. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SONU SUHEL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2024 IN SMALL CAUSE MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.09.11 10:35:51 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492 CRP No. 100162 of 2024 NO.06/2020 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) 1. This petition is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli, in Small Cause No.06/2020, dated 03.04.2024. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.96,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. It is stated that the plaintiff and the defendants are well known to each other. The respondents approached the petitioner and jointly borrowed a loan of Rs.80,000/- on 22.07.2018 for domestic expenses and jointly executed a promissory note for the said sum of Rs.80,000/- on 22.07.2018, agreeing to pay interest at 12% per annum. In spite of repeated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492 CRP No. 100162 of 2024 demands and the issuance of a legal notice on 13.01.2020, the respondents did not settle the claim. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. 4. Respondent has appeared before the trial court and filed written statement in which they have stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were working in a hotel called Shivashankaraiah Veerashaiva Khanavali at H.B. Halli. The proprietor of the said Khanavali is one Shivashankaraiah. The respondent No.1 is the brother-in-law of said Shivashankaraiah whereas the respondent No.2 is fostered by Shivashankraiah. 5. The respondents were working in the said Khanavali. The proprietor of said hotel Shivashankraiah had advised them to sale their earnings without misusing the same. As such, the said Shiveshanakraiah opened a Pigmy account in the name of respondent No.2 with primary agricultural credit Co-Operative Ltd, H.B.Halli. One Unki Neelakantappa S/o Unki Siddappa being the Pigmy agent of said bank used to collect pigmy on behalf of the said bank in the name of respondent No.2 who is having a pigmy - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492 CRP No. 100162 of 2024 account in the said bank bearing account No.5061 and the same was running from 07.10.2014. The Pigmy amount was regularly collecting by the said Unki Neelakantappa. 6. It is further contended that, the owner of the respondents Shivashankraiah was depositing the Pigmy amount regularly. After a while the respondents got married and their marriage was performed by Shivashankraiah. After their marriage they left the hotel and also stopped Pigmy payment to the Pigmy account. 7. It is further contended that, since the respondents were in need of money for their family necessities, they have approached the Pigmy agent Unki Neelakantappa and requested to disburse the amount which was collected in their pigmy account. But, the said Pigmy agent Unki Neelakantappa exploited the respondents by looking after their poor condition and he said that, the pigmy amount was paid by Shivashankraiah and not by the respondents. Hence, the respondents cannot claim the amount collected in the Pigmy account. The respondents have requested the pigmy agent to disburse the amount. By - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492 CRP No. 100162 of 2024 looking after the poor condition of the respondents the pigmy agent has asked them to put their signatures on several forms including the bond in the form of Promissory note for disbursal of pigmy amount. He advised the respondents that if they will be putting their signatures on papers it will be helpful for him to answer Shivashankaraiah if he would be claiming the Pigmy amount in future. By believing the words of pigmy agent the respondents have put their signatures to the several blank Papers. After that, the pigmy agent paid Rs.70,000/- as over draft on the pigmy amount collected in the pigmy amount. After certain time the pigmy agent demanded the respondents to clear the dues. As such, on 26.12.2018, on 02.02.2019 and on 04.02.2019 the respondents have cleared Rs.11,000/-, Rs.49,000/- and Rs.10,500/-. Even after clearance of the said amount the pigmy agent has not returned the blank signed papers to the respondents. He has stated that, the said documents were mis-placed somewhere else. For the said reason respondents have quarreled with the said Unki Neelakanatappa. The said Unki Neelakantappa exploited the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492 CRP No. 100162 of 2024 respondent No.1 and 2 while demanding for payment of Rs.1,50,000/- for returning of documents. 8. It is further contended that, due to the said quarrel held between Said Unki Neelakanappa and the respondents No.1 and 2, he has mis-used the signed blank papers of respondent No.1 and 2 and with the help of his brother Unki Harindra this petition has been filed by the Unki Neelakantappa against the respondent No.1 and 2. On the above grounds they pray to dismiss the petition. 9. To prove his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2, and produced six documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On closure of the plaintiff’s side evidence, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents as RW.1 and 2, and four documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4. 10. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court decreed the suit with costs. 11. The petitioner produced the promissory note as per Ex.P1, the office copy of the legal notice as per Ex.P2, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492 CRP No. 100162 of 2024 the postal receipts as per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, and two acknowledgments as per Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6. 12. In paragraph No.9(d) of the judgment, the Trial Court has observed as under: “9.d In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondents are well known to each other since several years. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 and 2 were working in Shivashankraiah Veerashaiva Khanavali at Hagaribommanahalli. It is also not in dispute that, the respondent No.2 had pigmy account in his name. It is also not in dispute that, the Unki Neelakantappa who is brother of petitioner was collecting pigmy amount from the respondent No.1 and 2 in their hotel. But it is the only dispute that, the respondent No.1 and 2 have not executed Ex.P.1 and received any amount from petitioner. It is their contention that, they do not know the petitioner. The respondents have utterly failed to prove their defence with cogent materials before the court. On the other hand, the petitioner has successfully proved that, the respondent No.1 and 2 have received hand loan of Rs.80,000/- from him and executed an on demand promissory note on 22.07.2018. The present suit is of the year 2020. Hence, it is made clear that, the suit is filed well within time. The petitioner has produced on demand promissory note, office copy of legal notice and postal acknowledgments for having service of Ex.P.2 on respondent No.1. These documents have not been denied by the respondents. Hence, in my considered view the petitioner has successfully proved his case. Hence, I answered Issue no.1 in Affirmative and Issue No.2 in Negative.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492 CRP No. 100162 of 2024 13. It is relevant to mention herein Section 118, Chapter XIII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which reads as under: “118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.—Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:— (a) of consideration:—that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; (b) as to date:—that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date; (c) as to time of acceptance:—that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity; (d) as to time of transfer:—that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity; (e) as to order of indorsements:—that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear then on; (f) as to stamp:— that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped; (g) that holder is a holder in due course:— that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course: Provided that, where the instrutment has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492 CRP No. 100162 of 2024 lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him. (i) By virtue of clause (a) of section 118 Court is obliged to presume that the promissory note was made for consideration until the contrary is proved. Initial burden lies on the defendant to prove to non existence of consideration which would lead the Court to believe the non existence of consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal; Mallavarupu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm, 2008 (7) SCC 655: 2008 (8) SCR 1210, (ii) Section 118 lays down a special rule of evidence applicable to negotiable instruments. The presumption is one of law and thereunder a court shall presume that the instrument was endorsed for consideration: Natarajan v. Marapna Goundr, AIR 2005 Mad 90.” 14. In the present case, the respondent has failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the N.I. Act. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. 15. I do not find any error or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11492 CRP No. 100162 of 2024 ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 41