- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29503 RFA No. 480 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 480 OF 2018 (MON) BETWEEN: B V RAVINDRANATH S/O SRI. VISHWANATH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3001, 2ND MAIN, 17TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 070 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AJITH KUMAR A S, AND SMT. A SWATHI AJITH, ADVOCATES) AND: KASHYAP DAKOJU S/O SHRI.D.KAMESH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF M/S REAL WORTH VENTURE PRODUCTIONS, BEERESHWARA COMPLEX, SY.NO.30/1, 4TH CROSS, NEW BANK COLONY, AMRUTHNAGAR MAIN ROAD, KONANKUNTE BANGALORE-560062 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NARAYANA REDDY M, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.11.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.4768/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29503 RFA No. 480 of 2018 XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 8.11.2017 passed in OS No.4768/2012 by the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-45) (for short the ‘Trial Court’). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money by pleading that the plaintiff is a producer and T.V.Satellite rights holder of the Kannada feature film ‘Swathi Male’, which was later renamed as ‘Mr.Duplicate’. The defendant has purchased the exclusive rights of Television Telecasting World Satellite Broadcasting Service, National Network and other rights of broadcasting for a royalty of ₹One crore and executed an agreement on 10.11.2010. The defendant had to pay a sum of ₹One crore as royalty to the plaintiff, but he paid - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29503 RFA No. 480 of 2018 ₹95,82,000/- and remaining amount was not paid by the defendant. Also there was an agreement to supply Beta Tape worth of ₹30,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant, but it was not supplied. Therefore, by deducting this amount, the defendant has still balance to pay a sum of ₹3,88,000/-, but the defendant has not paid the same. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money. 4. The defendant has appeared and filed written statement averring that he has paid the entire amount to the plaintiff and there is no due to the plaintiff. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues: “1. Whether plaintiff proves that it offered to sell the rights of suit film on 10.11.2010 for royalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the defendant and defendant by paying Rs.5,00,000/- executed the agreement and failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.35,00,000/- of paying of Rs.65,00,000/- as per the agreement? 2. whether he further proves that defendant failed to pay the final amount on 5.8.2011 and paid Rs.30,82,000/- by with holding Rs.3,88,000/- on 12.8.2011? 3. Whether he further proves that he entitled for claim amount of Rs.4,57,840/- with interest of 18% per annum from 5.8.2011 till 4.7.2012 with future interest of 3% per month till realization? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29503 RFA No. 480 of 2018 4. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES DATED 11.12.2014 1. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards the sale consideration/royalty to the plaintiff as per the agreement dated 10.11.2010 between the plaintiff and the defendant? 2. Whether the defendant proves that he has paid the complete amount to the plaintiff and is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff? 3. Whether the defendant proves that the defendant was entitled to deduct the balance amount payable to the plaintiff as per the agreement dated 10.11.2010? 4. Whether the defendant proves that the agreement between the defendant and Zee Network is binding on the plaintiff? 5. What order or decree?” 6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7(a) to (j). The defendant examined himself as DW.1 . The defendant during the course of cross- examination of PW.1 has confronted two documents, which are marked as Exs.D1 and D2. 7. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record has decreed the suit on the reason that there is no pleading by the defendant in the written statement for payment of ₹5.00 lakhs through cash and the defendant has admitted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29503 RFA No. 480 of 2018 Ex.D2 – statement of accounts, which proves the defendant still owes to pay a sum of ₹35.00 lakhs as on 28.7.2011. Therefore, came to the conclusion that the defendant still owes to pay the balance amount and accordingly, decreed the suit. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that PW.1 in the cross-examination admitted the four receipts, which are marked as Ex.D1 and the statement of accounts (Ex.D2). Therefore, the plaintiff has admitted the receipt of entire amount, but the Trial Court has wrongly held that the admission is a stray sentence and ignored the said documentary evidence illegally. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that there is no evidence that the defendant has paid the sum of ₹5.00 lakhs cash and if the defendant had paid ₹5.00 lakhs by cash, then that would have been reflected in the statement of accounts (Ex.D2), but vide Ex.D2 which is confronted by defendant himself had admitted that still he owes the balance of ₹35.00 lakhs. When this being the admission of the defendant, it is proved that the defendant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29503 RFA No. 480 of 2018 is still owing a balance to pay to the plaintiff and that is rightly considered by the Trial Court, which calls for no interference and therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. 10. On the rival submissions and on perusal of records, the points that arise for consideration are: i. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff proves that the defendant still owes a balance of ₹3,88,000/- to the plaintiff? ii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendant proves that he has paid the entire amount of royalty and there is no balance payable of ₹3,88,000/-? iii. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court? 11. It is not in dispute that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. That the defendant had purchased the right of broadcasting a feature film for payment of royalty of ₹One crore to the plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that the defendant has paid a sum of ₹95,82,000/- to the plaintiff. The disputed fact is regarding payment of ₹3,88,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has relied on admissions given by PW.1 in the course of cross-examination - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29503 RFA No. 480 of 2018 that he has issued four receipts as per Ex.D1 and statement of accounts (Ex.D2). The Trial Court has categorized this admission as a stray admission. Based on the other circumstances and evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the defendant has admitted the due balance was ₹35,00,000/- as on 28.7.2011 to the plaintiff. Further, the defendant has not pleaded the payment of cash of ₹5.00 lakh to the plaintiff in the written statement, therefore, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff has issued four receipts as per Ex.D1 and the statement of accounts (Ex.D2), but at the same time the defendant has admitted Ex.D2 that as on 28.7.2011 the balance amount was ₹35,00,000/-. 12. The crux of the matter is regarding payment of ₹5.00 lakh and if it is proved that the defendant has paid ₹5.00 lakh through cash, then this amounting to entire payment by the defendant to the plaintiff. But payment of ₹5.00 lakh through cash is not reflected in Ex.D2 – statement of accounts. When the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money and contesting the same, then the burden is on the defendant to prove that the entire amount was paid by him by pleading necessary averments on which date the amount was paid to the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29503 RFA No. 480 of 2018 plaintiff. But the defendant has not pleaded that he has paid the sum of ₹5.00 lakh through cash to the plaintiff. When this being the fact, the defendant had admitted Ex.D2 – statement of account that as on 28.7.2011 still the defendant owes to the plaintiff a sum of ₹35,00,000/-. The defendant has confronted Ex.D2 – statement of account accepting the balance due as ₹35,00,000/- as on 28.7.2011. Therefore, even if the defendant has paid a sum of ₹5.00 lakh, that must have been before the date of Ex.D2 – statement of account i.e., prior to 28.7.2011. Therefore, there is no merit found in the contention taken by the defendant that he has paid the entire amount including cash of ₹5.00 lakh. The dispute is regarding ₹3,88,000/- only. According to the defendant he has paid a sum of ₹5.00 lakh through cash. Therefore, paid an excess amount of ₹1,12,000/-. If the defendant has taken the plea that by way of cash he has paid ₹5.00 lakh to the plaintiff in the written statement, then the case would have been accepted, but when the suit is for recovery of money and it is the assertion of the defendant that he has paid the entire amount, then it is burden on the defendant to prove by evidence that he has paid the entire amount of ₹One crore to the plaintiff. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29503 RFA No. 480 of 2018 Though the defendant has produced receipt regarding payment of ₹95,82,000/-, but has failed to produce the evidence that the amount of ₹5.00 lakh was paid through cash to the plaintiff. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit holding that the defendant still ows to pay a sum of ₹3,88,000/- to the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) in the affirmative, point Nos.(ii) and (iii) in the negative. 13. Therefore, the appeal is found to be devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 8.11.2017 passed in OS No.4768/2012 by the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-45), is affirmed. No costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29