AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgement and decree dated 28th February 2003 passed in S.C. No. 1790/2001 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.
The case of the petitioner herein - plaintiff is that, deceased Kondanna/Kondaiah, husband of first respondent herein and father of minor respondents 2 to 4 herein, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as loan from petitioner for improving his business in hair dressing-cum-shaving and in consideration of having received the said loan, late Kondanna/Kondaiah had executed a demand promissory note and consideration receipt in favour of petitioner agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 21 % per annum and the said transaction was witnessed by two witnesses. The deceased Kondanna/Kondaiah died a year ago without discharging any part of loan or interest during his life time and however, he has left behind considerable properties and that, the respondents 1 to 4 being the legal heirs of late Kondanna/Kondaiah have inherited his properties. Therefore, it is the case of petitioner - plaintiff that, respondents 1 to 4 herein are liable to pay the loan amount to the petitioner together with interest thereon. It is the further case of petitioner that, in spite of making repeated demands and request to respondents to make good the loan amount and interest thereon, the respondents have not paid any part of the loan amount. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to issue legal notice through the counsel and the respondents have replied to the same, denying the entire loan transaction. In view of that, petitioner was constrained to initiate the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,800/- including interest of Rs. 4,500/- and legal notice charge of Rs. 300/-.
The respondent No. 1 is a major and respondents 2 to 4 are since minors, represented through their natural mother and guardian - respondent No. 1. The first respondent both on her behalf and on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 has filed the written statement denying the alleged loan and the execution of the promissory note and consideration receipt by late Kondanna/Kondaiah in favour of petitioner and also disclaimed any knowledge of the execution of demand promissory note and consideration receipt by late Kondanna/Kondaiah. Further, the respondents have contended that, late Kondanna/Kondaiah has not left behind any property and as such, they have not succeeded to any of the estate of late Kondanna/Kondaiah and when they have not succeeded to any property or estate of late Kondanna/Kondaiah, they are not liable to discharge any of the debts of late Kondanna/Kondaiah. Therefore, they have specifically contended that, they are not liable to pay any amount much less the suit claim to the petitioner and requested to dismiss the suit with costs.
The petitioner, to substantiate his case before the Small Causes Court, has examined himself as PW1 and also examined two witnesses as PWs 2 and 3 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P6 and closed his side and the respondents in support of their case, have examined first respondent as DW1 and closed their side. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel representing both parties and after going through the pleadings available on file, has framed necessary points for consideration, which read thus:
1] whether the plaintiff proves that late Kondaiah borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from him for the improvement of his business and in consideration of having received the same, the defendant has executed the on demand promissory note and consideration receipt in his favour agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 1.75% p.m. i.e.21% pa?
II] Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants 1 to 4 being the legal heirs of late Kondaiah have succeeded to his estate and hence they are liable to pay the suit loan to the plaintiff bank together with interest thereon ?
III] Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a suit claim of Rs. 24,800/- from the defendants together with cost and current and future interest at 10% pa.?
IV] What decree or order?
The Court below, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, has answered the point No 1 in the ''affirmative'' and point Nos. 2 and 3 in the ''negative'', after considering the relevant material available on file, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and after affording an opportunity. The Court below, by its final order dated 28th February 2003, by assigning valid and cogent reasons at paragraph 14 of its judgment, has dismissed the suit filed by petitioner herein holding that, in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, petitioner has failed to produce any substantive document to establish that, deceased Kondanna/Kondaiah has left behind any estate and that the same has been succeeded by the legal representatives of deceased respondent, viz. respondents herein. The petitioner, except placing reliance on Ex.P6 - joint sale deed dated 4th March 1994, purchased by late Kondaiah and his brother, Keshavaiah, has not produced any substantive material in support of his case. Further, the Small Causes Court observed that, as per the evidence of petitioner, deceased borrower Kondaiah expired during the year 2000 and according to sale deed at Ex.P6, the property stated to have been purchased by deceased Kondanna/Kondaiah is during 1994 and there is a gap of about six years between the date of purchase of the property bearing No. 32, Sharavathinagar, 60ft. Road, Pattegarapalya Main Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore by late Kondanna/Kondaiah and his brother, Keshavaiah and the date of death of deceased Kondanna/Kondaiah. Accordingly, the Small Causes Court dismissed the suit filed by petitioner. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant revision.
I have heard learned Counsel appearing for both parties.
After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, I do not find any grave error as such committed by the said Court in dismissing the suit filed by petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,800/- from the legal representatives of deceased Kondanna/Kondaiah. It was the case of petitioner that, late Kondanna/Kondaiah had borrowed the loan for improvement of his hair-dressing cum shaving business and thereafter invested the said amount by purchasing the property along with his brother Keshavaiah. However, the Small Causes Court, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on file, at paragraph 8 of its judgment has answered point No. 1 in ''affirmative'' and point Nos. 2 and 3 in the ''negative''. Further, the Small Causes Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the submission made by learned Counsel appearing for the parties, has held at paragraphs 9 and 11 of its judgment that, petitioner has not produced any document to show that, deceased borrower late Kondanna/Kondaiah has left behind him any property and that, respondents 1 to 4 have inherited the said property and the property so inherited by respondent is worth the money that is sought to be recovered and also failed to produce any document to establish that, at the time of death of the borrower late Kondanna/Kondaiah, the alleged property purchased under the sale deed dated 4th March 1994 at Ex.P6 was standing in the name of late Kondanna/Kondaiah and after the death of late Kondanna/Kondaiah, respondents 1 to 4 have inherited the same. Therefore, the Small Causes Court came to the conclusion that, the plaintiff petitioner has miserably failed to prove that respondents 1 to 4 have inherited the property of deceased Kondanna/Kondaiah and that, they are liable to pay the debt of the deceased borrower Kondanna/Kondaiah to the petitioner. It is significant to note after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence specifically with reference to Ex.P6 - sale deed executed on 4th March 1994 that, late Kondanna/Kondaiah and his brother Keshavaiah have jointly purchased the property bearing No. 32, Sharavathinagar, 60 ft. Road, Pattegarapalya Main Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore and it is stated that, deceased Kondanna/Kondaiah has expired on 18th July 2000. Therefore, according to the sale deed at Ex.P6, there is a gap of six years between the date of purchase of the aforementioned property by late Kondanna/Kondaiah and his brother Keshavaiah. Except placing reliance on the said Exhibit, petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate the said stand nor produced any supportive material to establish that, the name of the late Kondanna/Kondaiah is entered in the revenue records and the property was standing in the name of the said deceased Kondaiah. Therefore, petitioner has utterly failed to produce any other document to establish that, the respondents 1 to 4 have inherited the immovable property and are liable to clear the debt of late Kondanna/Kondaiah, they being the legal heirs. The said reasoning given by the Small Causes Court is after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and recorded a specific finding that, in spite of affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, he has failed to substantiate his case. The Court below, after considering all the relevant material available on file, as stated supra, by assigning valid and reasons at paragraph 14 of its judgment, has dismissed the suit filed by petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the reasons assigned by the Court below for dismissing the suit filed by petitioner is just, fair and reasonable.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, I do not find any arbitrariness, perversity or illegality as such committed by the Court below in dismissing the suit filed by petitioner nor petitioner has made out any good grounds for such interference by this Court. Therefore, the revision petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.