- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1673 OF 2019 (MON) BETWEEN: 1. SRI T.G.RANGANATH, S/O GOVINDARAJU IYANGAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/A NO.523 “OM SAI RAM”, III MAIN II PHASE, BSK III STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 2. MS GEM COFFEE INTERNATIONAL LTD NO.93/2, PANCHAJANYA, VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. T.G.RANGANATH …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MUDUKANAGOUDA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI R. NANJUNDA GOWDA S/O K M RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO.21, 4TH BLOCK 7TH CROSS, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BHADRINATH.R, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.02.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.4621/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2019 passed in O.S.No.4621/2004 on the file of XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-18)1, thereby, the suit filed for recovery of money is decreed in part. 1hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. Heard the arguments from both the sides and perused the materials available on record. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE: 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the 2nd defendant is the managing director of the company. The 2nd defendant and the plaintiff are friends; therefore, the 2nd defendant asked for hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and the plaintiff advanced hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to the 2nd defendant for running the business of the company/1st defendant on 25.03.2001. Towards repayment of the same, the 2nd defendant also issued post-dated cheque bearing No.445578 dated 30.06.2001 drawn on Centurion Bank Ltd., Cunningham Road Branch, Bengaluru on assurance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 given by the 2nd defendant. When the plaintiff presented the said cheque, the said cheque was dishonored and thereafter, the plaintiff has got issued legal notice of demand by way of telegraphic notice demanding the defendants to pay the loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, but there was no response from the 2nd defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of money. 6. The defendants appeared through their Advocates and filed written statement contending that the defendants had not received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.03.2001 and the defendants had not issued any cheque to the plaintiff towards repayment of loan as stated by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants denied all the averments made in the plaint and pray to dismiss the suit. 7. It is further averred in the written statement that the defendants had paid Rs.8,50,000/- before the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.230/2005 through DD No.449570 dated 26.02.2009 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and deposited a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in SLP. Crl.No.9036/2008 and the same was withdrawn by the plaintiff towards full and final settlement between the parties. Also the defendants have taken contention that the plaintiff has filed complaints before the CMM Court in C.C.Nos.7373 and 7379 of 2003 by misusing the cheques, which did not belong to the defendants and for the same reason, both the complaints were dismissed on 01.01.2005. Challenging the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before this Court and only to avoid litigation, the 2nd defendant has paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- to the plaintiff and therefore, by misusing the cheque, the plaintiff has filed false suit. 8. Also, the defendants have taken contention in the written statement that the plaintiff has also filed one more complaint through his wife, namely, R.N. Anitha Gowda in C.C.No.2380/2008 before the CMM Court and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 the same was also dismissed. Challenging the same, the plaintiff’s wife has preferred an appeal before this Court and the same is pending. Therefore, by all these averments, pray to dismiss the suit. 9. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant borrowed the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- by issuing post dated cheque dated 30.06.2001? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover the claim amount at the rate of 18% p.a.? 3. Whether the defendants prove that entire due amount towards plaintiff is paid as contended in para No.7 of the written statement? 4. What order or decree? 10. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff is examined as PW-1 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.P-1 to P-4. On behalf of the defendants, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 2nddefendant is examined as DW-1 and got marked documentary evidence as Ex.D-1. 11. The Trial Court has assigned reasons and decreed the suit in part directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization. 12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendants have preferred the present appeal by raising various grounds in the memorandum of appeal and the learned counsel for the appellants argued in consonance with the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum that the defendants have not owed any amount payable to the plaintiff. The defendants have already paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- as contended in the written statement and therefore, there is no balance amount payable to the plaintiff. 13. Further argued that Ex.P-1–dishonored cheque does not belong to the defendants and the said cheque - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 does not bear the signature of 2nd defendant, but this was not considered by the Trial Court, resulting into passing of erroneous judgment and decree. Hence, pray to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and allow the appeal. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that at the request of 2nd defendant, the plaintiff advanced hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- for running the business of 1st defendant/company and towards security of the same, the 2nd defendant has issued a cheque as per Ex.P-1 and before the Trial Court, the signature of the 2nd defendant on the cheque is proved in comparison with the Vakalat of the 2nd defendant filed in the suit. Hence, justified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. Upon hearing the arguments from learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 perused the materials available on record, the following points would arise for my consideration: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that he has advanced hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- and defendant No.2 issued a cheque on 30.06.2001? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendants prove that they paid entire amount to the plaintiff in relation to the Ex.P-1/dishonored cheque? iii. Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court? 16. It is the simple case of the plaintiff that he advanced hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to defendant No.2 on his request for the business purpose of running the company/1st defendant on 25.03.2001 and the 2nd defendant issued a cheque/Ex.P-1 dated 30.06.2001 and the said cheque was dishonored. Ex.P-1 is the cheque for - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- issued in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants disputing the said cheque that defendant No.2 did not issue the said cheque and the signatures found on it are not those of the 2nd defendant. In this regard, before the trial, the plaintiff confronted the Vakalat of the 2nd defendant and admitted fact of execution of Vakalat. The Vakalat is marked as Ex.D-1 and the signature is marked as Ex.D-1(a). The signature found in the cheque/Ex.P-1 resembles the signature/Ex.D-1(a) in Ex.D-1/Vakalat. 17. The Trial Court, after making comparison of these signatures had formed opinion that the signature found on the Vakalat as Ex.D-1(a) and the signature found on Ex.P-1/cheque are appearing to be one and the same, as they are resembling each other. As per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1973 (for short 'the I.E.Act, 1973), the Court is empowered to compare the signature of admitted signature and the disputed signature. Therefore, once again comparing the signatures found on - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 Ex.P-1/cheque and Ex.D-1(a) in Ex.D-1/Vakalat, they are resembling each other. Hence, the Trial Court is correctly exercised its discretion as per Section 73 of the I.E. Act, 1973. 18. If it is the case of the defendants that they have failed to prove that they have paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-, then the defendants ought to have led evidence regarding for what transactions sum of Rs.8,50,000/- was paid to the plaintiff. Whether, this payment of Rs.8,50,000/- is pertaining to the advance loan of Rs.6,00,000/- or to other transactions. It is the burden on the defendants to prove that this payment of Rs.8,50,000/- is in respect of loan, but it is the case of the defendants that they had denied receiving hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/-. Therefore, the defendants might have paid amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to the plaintiff in regard to some other transactions. There is no evidence from the defendants that the payment of Rs.8,50,000/- to the plaintiff is in respect of loan transaction of Rs.6,00,000/- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 as contended in the plaint, but it is simply a denial case of the plaintiff that the defendants have not received a loan of Rs.6,00,000/-. 19. Therefore, when the facts emerge on the face of the evidence, the question that comes before the Court is for what purpose the 2nd defendant issued cheque/Ex.P-1 to the plaintiff. If it is case of the defendants that they have not received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and also paid Rs.8,50,000/-, then what purpose Ex.P-1/cheque was issued is not explained by the defendants. Therefore, when it is proved that the signature found on Ex.P-1 is that of 2nd defendant and the cheque is issued for the account of the defendants, then as a security towards receiving hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/-, the said cheque was issued by the 2nd defendant. 20. Upon considering and appreciating the evidence on record, it is proved that the plaintiff has lent hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- and towards discharge of the same, the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 2nd defendant issued cheque as per Ex.P-1. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in decreeing the suit, which needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i) in the Affirmative and point Nos.(ii) and (iii) in the Negative. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 11.02.2019 passed in O.S.No.4621/2004 on the file of XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-18) is hereby confirmed. iii. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment to the Trial Court. iv. No order as to costs. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31037 RFA No. 1673 of 2019 In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs’, if any, shall stand disposed of. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52