AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 197/2005 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Srirangapatna, has come up in this second appeal challenging the dismissal of his suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- with interest from the defendant in the original suit, who is respondent herein.
Admittedly the suit is said to be for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- which is said to have lent by the plaintiff to defendant on 14.10.2004 under Exs. P-2 and P-3. The plaintiff and defendant are Government servants, plaintiff is working as Veterinary Inspector and defendant is working as Village Accountant. The record would disclose that their respective wife were also doing finance business under the name of Vaibhava Lakshmi Finance Company doing chit business and there were some dispute between them with reference to financial transaction in conducting chit.
Though the plaintiff has alleged that he has lent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to defendant as hand loan, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that infact as on the date of Exs. P-2 and P-3, he was in possession of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to be parted in favour of defendant as hand loan. The evidence on record would not disclose the source. It is stated that the hand loan is provided by way of cash. The witnesses who are examined on behalf of plaintiff do not support the statement of plaintiff. The plaintiff has also failed to establish execution of Exs. P-2 and P-3, on demand promissory note and as well as consideration receipt. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 would indicate that the transaction is not hand loan as claimed by the plaintiff, instead it is a loan transaction, where the defendant is said to have borrowed the money with a promise to repay the same with monthly interest at 2% p.a.
When admittedly the plaintiff and defendant being Government Employees and plaintiff not having valid license for lending the money in the aforesaid manner and the plaintiff having failed to establish that the whole transaction between them is only hand loan, the Trial Court has rightly held issue Nos. 1 and 4 in the negative in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has lent and defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 14.10.2004 under Exs. P-2 and P-3 and consequently held that the plaintiff is not entitled to secure the relief of decree of recovery of the same. While considering the other issues, i.e., issue Nos. 2 and 3, the Court below has come to the conclusion that Exs. P-2 and P-3 not being properly established to demonstrate that the same is executed by the defendant in the original suit, the same is held to be bogus, created and forged one and accordingly the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed keeping in mind that the entire transaction is not properly explained as a hand loan between the plaintiff and defendant in the light of earlier transaction between the plaintiffs wife and defendant''s wife being partners in the business of Vaibhava Lakshmi Finance Company running chit business. In that view of the matter, suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed.
It is further seen that the Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to the conclusion that the finding of Trial Court on Issue Nos. 1 and 4 based on the pleadings and evidence appears to be just and proper, since no evidence to substantiate that the loan transaction is placed on record. Accordingly the Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the finding on Issue Nos. 1 and 4 is erroneous. In that view of the matter, as against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below on fact, this Court find that no grounds are made out to admit this second appeal inasmuch as no substantial question of law arise for consideration.
Accordingly, this second appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 197/2005 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Srirangapatna, is hereby dismissed.