Md .-... \l1dfl'QI9IlI ~un"ur'v:ga'.<rVI"I wu emu-nmumrna»-"um Imlwn Mvunfi WV nnmmamsmimm muwn %..JMUKi Q)?" flflflmflfflfifl NEG" @634
IN THE HIGH coum or KARNATAKA 5'9;
BANGALORE
DATED mxs THE 20% DAY or T "
TI-IE Hozmm mn2sJUs+rzz:g B::z.HAc.r% k%
cmx, REVISION PENTIQH no.3:
BETWEEN: V _ V
sum.
W! at: !s2[.G;Eahwa.rj 'Rac.t,
""" "R; C: N1'-'.31: M4311-'!t
%3Jgds;m--i%--5k7:2cn1.
...PE'l"I'1'IONER
_ sriyuthfi v.'srinive.a, I-I .G.Mo1um Kumar,
" . i~ Askwzif»
' Smt. MG... ~ "aanu,
Win Abdulla. wurking an
Angamvadi Teacher,
Aged about 62 years,
Kannandabane,
Madmeri---571201 .
"RESPONDENT.
.. … ..n…m………. W…-m …,..mm W mmmam a-mm mum or KARNMAM mm»: cmmr 0? mmmam mesa co
THIS cmz. REVISION pmrnox rs %m.]m>
UNDER sacnox 1a 09 THE sm.Lm.us%
coums ACT, AGAINST THE mmmNT%%;3;Kp &
DEGREE DATED 15.4.2003; “”‘PAS;8 _EI;31 :’I1§ V_”-§§f”~’
No.26/2oo5 on THE FILE %.,9Iz:I;%»:’;g.;i%%%%
(8R.DN,) MABIKERI, n1sran%as%mG% mm % %
RECOVERY OF MONEY.
mama THIS »;e.§i%rEzg’§%1;.:;s4%’B¥1sEN POSTED
T0 CON3I_b’EiR. %L°A%.Pmc7xr1ox mm
co2InonA1*IQN}f%cm1%-%%i%:%%%%D%E1;AY, THE LEARNED
COUNSEF;1I5Cg’?I2.}ii§i’-E”‘~I§ETi’I’Ii.’;’51’~i”ER IS HEARD AND
THE GGURP Fir:-LLowIm:
OR R
T_ petition is filed under section 18
of Fcauaes Court: Act, ahaJ1engmg’ the
and decree dated 15.4.2008 panned in
f9s7.c%.:!§5.26/2005 by the Court of the Civil Judge
% “($1-;.Dn.),. lkhdikeri.
2}There1cvant&cteoftheca.aeamtha.tt11e
petitioner, who is the plaintiflj, had filed a suit
5′}
,1
R/.
.n_- ……,.,,a WWI M,….w….m niwn …Wm. W nnxwflannfl Hm»-I mun: or nmmmnm was»; com” 0? mmmxm mm am
against respondent/defendant waking
an amount of m.1a,5so;— with future
13% per annum srom the date gaiguit k L
According to the plaintifl,
defendant had borrowed of A %
t11e\plaint.ifi’ for her repay
the name with axecuted
an on fivour of the
plaintifl’. not repay the
amouré 3 request and legal
notice, a, suit welfing recovery
_ ‘or at with notiee charges. Upon
from the trial Caurt, the defi-mdant
mm V9′ and aooord.mg’ ly, as per order dated
— she was placed ax-parts.
_ In order to prove her oaaa, the p1aintifi’
{ herself as r>.w.1 and got marked Ex.P-1
to Ex.P-4. After hearing arguments, the trial Court
flamed the fbllowing points for its ccmuideration.
1. Whether the plaintifl proves that
31.12.1998 the defendant V.
a sum of Ra.6,000/-
pla.intifi’ ad eunwutad pro1;1iha9r§f”~
note in her :|hvour u 2
theloanwithinteresfifi 3 .
2. Whether the auit._1_a aieciahcn %
thetimu? __ VV
3. Whether thg: pxghsim’ in mm.-,4
weaver the f_auit ” ~ gmcunt of
Ra.13,680/–‘8;1iI’:Ji*$i.jr§:d_j:1:1.ftbgplninf?
4) on record, the
am New to 3 in the
negatisfe tho auit of the plaintifi’.
said judgmmt and dac.-rec,
4h:a:.§f..p1~efen’ed this revision petihan.
x the learned C-ounaol for the
. He submit: that on 31.12.1993, the
had hemmed a sum of Rs.6,000/- fium
».~.-A5;….ux.A» VI! m-mumnnnn nuum LFUUK. ur !\A!(NAiAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNA”FAKfl HiGH COURT 0% KARNATAKA HEGH CQ4
V’ :.”t1h¢ plaintifiand to cvidenec: the said fact, there. was
3. document executed, which was in fact, a
mcxtgage, whereby an the nun-payment of the aaid
}2;>5_
amount by the: defendant, the pmnufg had
to get thc property sold and recover the
amount and under the cimumgtangené “Vt ‘
-VIIVI-“I -.5.,,,,_’, W ume”I.u’a.l£”Ifif'”mfl-R”il\.W’fi twm W mnmmm mm uuuxz or ummnwcn me:-s mam’ or KARNAYAKA HIGH ma
had 3. period of twelve ycara ._
to file the plaint necking 1′ ‘
Article 62 of the tlie trial
mm m m«wma «mm
parametar Act and
as the one
filed Q-and of limitation. He
submits a document Ex.P-1,
. immovable propemn the
is twelve years and not three yearn
.. the trim Court. Under the
he Iubmitn that the judment and
I passed by the trial Court ought to be
6) Having heard the warned Counael for the
pctitinmr and on perusal of the material on reoord,
29/
In m an w-u
‘ “”‘” ” “”””‘A'”,?-“”‘§_” WW” I\.Hmm:-52:-u\:-It ring?! %..U’UKl 5.)!” KERKNAEAKM HJHH CUUR3 0? KARNfiYAKfi§ HEGW CQURI 05 KAKNATAKA Mia?’ (:01
the only point that arise: for my ooneidem’etie;tie_:’at.gt
to whether the judgment and decree
7) A perusal of the
makes it apparent that mt
judgment and for
payment of 18%
per the date of
Ebeen sought on the
basis the plamtmhad
eadvmtced%§etogn§£y%R.g.egooe;– to the defendant, and
there was Ex.P– 1, which
LA}; wt-tmby the property mentioned in
i _ the was to be sold for the realieatinn
‘ zeattteunt. Herwever, what in apparent in that
doeum-mt in not 3. registered document.
%T Uitder the circumstances, the plnintifl’ by filing the
suit in the year 2005 in respect of the loan
tratmacflon which teak place in December 1998 has
fly,
-turwlw wuumq-mum
l>t’0W”&YR ~’auoveuav\gr_»’I:It’1s ‘Wit m-amwmw-mum us-“wt-s wvwml wt nnnwmennfl nman mwux: wt” mnmwntnwt flififi LIUL3K’I’ €23?” KAI€Nfl.’E’AK.&. MR3″ flag
styledtheeaidaionttobeanon
promissory note. Even otherwise, the
well aware that reliance could gtet.b¢ ‘ ‘
said document, which any
simple mortgage, having to .th¢.” the A %
said documant is ~~..§- and
themefore has no’ in the
nature of % Undnr the
for raacawry of
the sutra, _ by her to the
to Ex.P-1 an. 5. simple
meaning of Sermon 58 of
Act.
Court after recvarding avidenca has
‘ ” as per Ex.F-1 the defendant is the owner
of land measuring 3.75 «mt. in
‘T » ::1–fl§ytNo.30. However in what way the said property
1’ 3 was transacted and right was given to thc plaintiff
waanotexphkzcdmfimaaiddomment. Thetrial
fly
1…, «mm-».. ».
‘”‘”‘ “”‘°f’+:~”‘?:,’ W ‘mmm”‘””” mwv MUUKI ur AMMNMEMKM a-mm €…(.!UKi vi imxwmmm mm-1 comm mi MKNATAM E-iimi co!
Court has mi-me: noted that 1=.w.1 in
examination-in-chief has not stated as
the property mentioned in Ex. P: ” ~
not. If Ex.P-»1 is in the nature V
pls.intifi’ ought to have ” L’
313-11.’? word: in said
document was with law.
Howwer, in to the said
mm, the fior return of the
axnouxivii aieiit dated
31.12.1§9si.% Ex.P–l has
a. document evidencing
loan in which event the relief
of the said loan would have to
coniiimi within the scope of Article 23 of the
% ‘ Act, in which «mat period of limitation
V. is 3 yams from the data: when thcu me-nay
V is advanced.
gurus mwwna Q.-N 5l\lI’I£\Rflll”‘%mdi”‘&l’UH& Muwrw Wm?!” mnmmwmimmm WEIWWFI MWWWQ ‘WT’ h\.f§.hEVs9″\flFll\J”‘§ HEW” RAKIUKE Ur Rflfllfifiiflflll f’§Hs$’3’3 KQJKJKQ §m3§'”‘ fiflmwflfiflfifl
9; From the aonumta of the pmnt is
that the cause of action arose an
the legal notice was issued ‘
11.3.2005 and the same was
and thereafter the suit “;in 1′ L’
which event the pf i_:§:ié_ A’ ‘5¢3W:’i§xd the
pmscribud peripd of in
Article 23 Under the
juatified in
by me and
thereby The aforesaid reasons
Court 13:): dismissing the suit
revision petition.
‘ .. aforeaaid reasons, thin revision in also
‘
Sd/-
Iudge