Smt Gangappla Shanthamma vs G Murigeppa on 17 July, 2009

by executing “en” deman&7 ptbfiissefy note. The

defendant—-‘nvh,é;{éfl;f.’ISé5ij3row.:§§3’—-.at ‘snnlnf Rs.5,000/-~ from
the pleintiff en i}8g2QG9 by executing on demand

promissoryVnete{‘_V

.t§.n§n_1G.é}2GQ5, the elders of the village

tVnamélyjuB;§ifupakshappa sic. fianakar Siddappa

RfeiHane§e§adi;’ G.Shivappa Sie.Mudegowdappa,

nG.Dhetm3fipe : Sio.Gurushanthappa Gowdra both

utttnegidenté of Belludi village and N.S.L¢ke3warappa

:n$/d{Sannasiddappa Rfo.Shamshipur settled the

‘:”diépute between the parties. Wherein, plaintiff,

“her husband Gangadharappaiah and defendant agreed

1
j .-

nykf. &-Lyme ‘ _’_’

18.2.2003 for a sum of Rs.l0,000/- and

Consideration receipt dated 18.2.2003. Defendant

besides examining himself had also examinedfD§s.2_

and 3 who are instrumental for settling itEeVgn

dispute between the plaintiff and defendant§*dns=_l

per the evidence of defendants’

above settlement took place on 15.2.2063; DWs.2

and 3 have given consistent evidence that after
settlement defendant eeid a flue of Rs.1j;Od0/- to
plaintiff and her husband tofiardsdfnli and final
settlement of'”enount’ due ‘u§aér.i§i¢ note dated
1.8.2000 faefial sumfl of! Rs:5;§GG7- and pro note
dated V18.2:%¢fi3 ¥$or”d§* sun” of Rs.10,000f–. The
execution of fife note dated 18.2.2003 for a sum

of xs.10,’éa.Qi;’«.- ibylludefiendant and his brother in

__favoun of the husoand of plaintiff has not been

AV_disputed; -Itv is also not disputed that these

‘ V l

docunentnian~ ; by defendant were in his

_possession.n” The husband of plaintiff was not

dixexamine&~before the trial court to dispute these

‘”_transaCtions. The plaintiff has not narrated

E”*,oifcumstances under which the pro note dated

:i18.2.2OG3 which had been executed, by defendant

and his brother in favour of the husband of

plaintiff, was returned to the defendant.

5. It is seen from the obverse of the fire

note dated 1.8.2006. on 1.8.2003, defendent*fliey

alleged to have executed an acknowledgement iofsj ”

liability. On consideratiuni ii efiilixthegv

acknowledgement of liability 7whiehi is_”s§:§~Tt§*[

have been executed by defendant ofi obverse of pro
note dated 1.8.2000. I hold that afiartfifrdm the
fact that evidence on reeordidcee not prove the
execution of ecknow1edgement_ sf hliebility by

defendant onfl then pro jn5t§’,dé£ed5 1.8.2000 the

endorsement’ detedL’l.8.2fiG3: does not constitute
the acknowledgement» of iliability in terms of

Sectien”u19 of. the vfiimitation Act. On careful

“,V§on§iee£5ti5n_of the acknowledgement of liability

‘dated ldéyédfifig it is not possible to infer that

defendant paid a sum of Rs.1,6Cl0/’- towards

d”~, interest 3and they had agreed to pay Ks.2,GGO/~

i«.”towerds the reminder of interest. ?he

i*.hdechnowledgement of liability is said to have been

dkexecuted on fl1.8.2G03. whereas, pro note was

executed on 1.8.2690.

6. The evidence of plaintiff and her witness

in proof of acknowledgment of liability dated

1.8.20003 suffers from various discrepancies.'”:.:’i’hé,

plaintiff has admitted that her husband Iid*f~

carrying on money lending… busivaess,» V

transactions have come into», e:{;istenr?_e”~_’at’ .:”thei(_’

instance of the husband7Vc’.».fa piaiintiffdgi

reasons best known to p3_aiin’ti3:”fV and husband
of plaintiff, was ex–emji;ned..V__’b_ie’fore the trial
court. Therefore, anVV_ev.idvierse: in’ter~§€erence has to
be drawn dgd’_tdidt p3.a*i;nt’i,frf’:.i”” withholding
material ievidence. husband more
particu’l’a’r’i’yAViiiwhenghusband of plaintiff was
instrumiential ‘ toifthe.._rt..r:ansaction. The plaintiff

when crosVa~..examinet£_V the panchayath that took

on’ has feigned her ignorance.

A<_$h¢»p1aintd§f.tad deposed that defendant had paid

3;" ._sQ1iz'gd o£"~.:,d,+is;.i.i;£t3()(Z!/- towards interest. However,

V _ she iub.asv–._'.no1:': deposed that said sum of Rs.1,6OC)f-

fg§ia.3VtLpai'd'.on execution of the acknowledgement of

'"_iddtdiity dated 1.8.20G3.

7. On reconsideration of the matter, I hold

“that trial court has not committed any material

irregularity in appreciation of evidence. In the
circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere
with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, petitien
is dismissed. Parties are directed to beef tfieit”,

costs.

TIES .

.£§gyc:.