- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49530 RSA No. 594 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.594 OF 2024 (MON) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. N. PARVATHAMMA, W/O SRI. M. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NOW R/AT NO.37/2, G-BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 092. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. A. MUNIRAJU, S/O ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KONAGHATTA, MAJARA KODIHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561203. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.94/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.10.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.449/2007 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49530 RSA No. 594 of 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,47,000/- agreeing to repay the same within three months and executed post-dated cheque dated 12.07.2006 drawn on Corporation Bank, Shankar Nagar Branch, Bangalore on 12.07.2006. The cheque was issued by the defendant for repayment of the loan availed and inspite of request made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the amount and directed to present the cheque and on presentation of the cheque, the same was dishonored. Hence, legal notice was issued and inspite of demand and acceptance of notice, no - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49530 RSA No. 594 of 2024 reply was given and hence, without any other alternative, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that there was a land transaction between herself and one Smt. C.Bhavya, sister-in-law of the plaintiff and the said C.Bhavya had got blank cheque from the defendant, which has been misused by the plaintiff and filed the suit. 4. The Trial Court considering the pleadings as well as the defence, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 8. On the other hand, the defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and examined one witness as D.W.2. The Trial Court considered both oral and documentary evidence and particularly taken note of the admission on the part of defendant No.1 that the cheque belongs to her and she only signed the same. The Trial Court also taken note of the defence of the defendant that cheque was not given to the plaintiff and the same was given to Smt. Bhavya in connection with land dispute between both of them and the same was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49530 RSA No. 594 of 2024 misused by the plaintiff. The defendant in order to substantiate the same, examined herself as D.W.1 and also examined one witness as D.W.2, who is an advocate. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 in paragraph No.16 and also the defence which was taken. The Trial Court also taken note of that in the cross-examination of D.W.1, she admits that D.W.2 Balaji says that blank cheque was given towards his fee and hence, comes to the conclusion that defence, which was taken in the written statement is different from the admission given by D.W.1 in the cross- examination and hence, not accepted the defence of D.W.1. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of D.W.2 and having assessed the evidence of D.W.2, comes to the conclusion that the evidence of D.W.2 not inspires the confidence of the Court with regard to the very defence of the defendant and inspite of notice was given and the same is acknowledged, no reply was given and the present defence is taken at the time of filing the written statement. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court and granted the relief of money decree. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49530 RSA No. 594 of 2024 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points whether the Trial Court committed an error in believing both oral and documentary evidence and whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence, taken note of the admission on the part of defendant No.1 that cheque belongs to her. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.26, taken note of that in order to prove the defence that cheque was given in favour of Smt. Bhavya, defence was taken that two cheques are issued and case was filed in C.C.No.15345/2007 and except that no documents are placed before the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.31 taken note of that when the defence was taken by the defendant that two cheques were taken for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- from Smt. Bhavya, what made the defendant to issue the cheque again in favour of Smt. Bhavya, there is no explanation. In paragraph No.32 in detail discussed that there was no need - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49530 RSA No. 594 of 2024 of issuance of subject matter of cheque and taken note of contra evidence given by D.W.1 in her evidence as against the pleading of the written statement. In paragraph No.40 taken note of the evidence of D.W.2 and comes to the conclusion that if any such transaction was there between the said Bhavya and the defendant, in order to substantiate the same, ought to have placed the document before the Court and even with regard to any compromise and negotiation, which had taken place in the said transaction and nothing is produced. The evidence of D.W.2 was not corroborated by any pleadings and such defence was not taken in the written statement. Considering contra evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2, i.e., pleading is different from the evidence given by D.W.1, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant was having transaction with two other persons and there was no any transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant and both the Courts - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49530 RSA No. 594 of 2024 have committed an error in considering both oral and documentary evidence available on the record. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the defence, which has been taken and also substantiated by leading evidence by examining D.W.2 and these two witnesses evidence was not considered in a proper perspective and hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the pleading of the parties, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that he had lent an amount of Rs.5,47,000/- to the defendant and in turn, the defendant executed a cheque dated 12.07.2006. The defendant not disputes the issuance of cheque, but only defence was taken that cheque was given in connection with land transaction between herself and one Smt. Bhavya, who is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff and the said cheque was misused by the plaintiff. In order to substantiate the said defence, nothing is placed on record and no doubt, examined the witness D.W.2. Both the Courts have taken note of the evidence of D.W.2 and also the defence, which was taken in the written statement and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49530 RSA No. 594 of 2024 both are contradictory to each other. The defendant has taken the defence that cheque was given in favour of Smt.Bhavya, but during the cross-examination, an answer is elicited that cheque was given in favour of the advocate for his fee and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.16. The answer elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 is contrary to her own defence and the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 not inspires the confidence of the Court. Both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court considered both oral and documentary evidence and when there was no specific pleading as to the evidence of D.W.2 and also the evidence of D.W.1 is contrary to her own pleading, the same is taken note of by the First Appellate Court and in paragraph No.42 comes to the conclusion that in order to substantiate the evidence of D.W.2, no such documents are placed, except producing the documents of Exs.D.1 and 2 and in order to prove that there was a transaction between the defendant and Smt. Bhavya, no documents are placed on record and the same is also discussed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. When such being the case, when the fact finding and question of law is considered by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49530 RSA No. 594 of 2024 Court and when no perversity is found in the findings of both the Courts, the question of admitting the second appeal does not arise and hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantial question of law. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following order: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38