HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16666-DB RFA No. 2073 of 2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2073 OF 2023 (MON) BETWEEN: AMEMAR ABDUL RAZAK S/O ABDUL KHADAR, AGED 56 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, R/AT NEAR TALUK OFFICE, POLICE STATION, B.C.ROAD, BANTWAL TALUK, D K-574 219. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRACHOODA., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. A.SRINIVAS RAO S/O A.RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, G.H.S.ROAD, MANGALURU-575 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAKESH.B.BHAT., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.07.2023. PASSED IN OS.NO.296/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU, D.K, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16666-DB RFA No. 2073 of 2023 2 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU) 1. The present appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2023, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, D.K. in O.S.No.296/2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Judgment’). 2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court has awarded the respondent/plaintiff a sum of Rs.87,36,000/- along with interest at 10% pendente lite, as well as 8% future interest. The payment is to be made by the appellant herein. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant raises three contentions. He submits that the money was HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16666-DB RFA No. 2073 of 2023 3 allegedly borrowed by the respondent/plaintiff and it was returned by the respondent/plaintiff by way of a bank transfer received by the appellant/defendant. Secondly, he contends that the award of interest was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’). Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that he was not given any opportunity to place his defence before the learned Trial Court and thus, the matter should be remanded. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on the other hand contends that the money was paid by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant by a bank transfer, in view of a purchase that the respondent/ plaintiff required to make. He further submits that no loan was taken by the respondent/plaintiff from the appellant/defendant that was required to be returned. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff further contends that the payment was made through a bank HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16666-DB RFA No. 2073 of 2023 4 account and the respondent/plaintiff has placed evidence in this regard. Lastly, he submits that despite opportunity being granted to the appellant, he did not cross-examine the respondent/plaintiff nor produce any evidence in support of his contentions. 5. On the question of interest, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that since it was for a commercial transaction, the interest should be awarded at commercial rates. Thus, he contends that the Impugned Judgment is not required to be interfered with. 6. The Impugned Judgment sets out that it is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he wanted to establish a hotel business and engaged the services of the appellant/defendant for allotment of a BDA approved site. On the asking of the appellant/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff remitted a sum of Rs.87,36,000/- to the bank account of the appellant/defendant. The receipt of this payment was confirmed by the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16666-DB RFA No. 2073 of 2023 5 appellant/defendant. However, the allotment did not take place. In view thereof, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the money paid to the appellant/defendant. 7. In support of his contention, the respondent/plaintiff produced the bank receipt reflecting transfer through RTGS to the bank account of the appellant/defendant as Exhibit-P3, as well as the bank statement at Exhibit-P5. The respondent/plaintiff also placed on record the legal notice at Exhibit-P1, as well as its postal receipt. The requisite certificate under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was also placed on record. 8. The learned Trial Court has further found that although the defendant took a defence that has been averred before this Court as well, he has neither come forward to cross examine the plaintiff (PW-1), nor led any evidence on his own behalf, which would controvert the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the respondent/plaintiff. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16666-DB RFA No. 2073 of 2023 6 9. The position before this Court is not different. No document or material has been placed on record before this Court by the appellant/defendant in support of his contentions raised. Since no document or new evidence has been placed on record by the respondent/plaintiff, there will be no question of remanding the matter to the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has already examined all evidence that has been placed on record by the parties. 10. However, on the issue of interest, the learned Trial Court has awarded 10% pendente lite, as well as 8% future interest. Given the fact that no evidence was placed by the respondent/plaintiff either showing that there was a written agreement between the parties for payment of such interest, nor was it a commercial transaction, this Court deems it apposite to reduce the interest awarded to 6% per annum in terms of Section 34 of the CPC, which reads as follows: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16666-DB RFA No. 2073 of 2023 7 “34. Interest — (1) Where and insofar as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, [with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit : [Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. [Emphasis Supplied] 11. Accordingly, the Impugned Judgment and decree is modified in the following manner: (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The respondent/plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.87,36,000/- along with 6% pendente lite, as well as future interest per annum. (iii) The Registry shall draw a modified decree in the aforegoing terms. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16666-DB RFA No. 2073 of 2023 8 (iv) The amount deposited before this Court inclusive of interest upto date shall be released in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, towards satisfaction of the judgment and decree. (v) The respondent/plaintiff is also at liberty to take steps in accordance with law, towards the satisfaction of the Judgment and Decree. (vi) No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE JJ / YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4