If\I' THE HIGH COURT OFv§<_¢gRNATAIK','\ AT _EA:xI'GAL<:3:;i'E'I
DATEE: THIS THE 3% NGVEVMEEIR LQQITG
THE
BETWEEN: L
ERAIAH ' 7
3/0
AGED ABGUTFZ"Y'E.ARS.f---.,
R/AT GHIKI<AVE'ERAru\IA" .o--PP'ALu} VILLAGE
%%AME\.¥~i_"E'f" GEBEIIIIADA.M-ALLENAHALLI
IYA 'DISTRICT-.5T7.1'4--342_. APPELLANT
(EV Sir1T.F4.G'E'ETH~A, ADV.)
LLLLL
vi' 3 T ELEEGVAJAVAIDA
L.S/Q'II>AI31G0wDA I
I I2;/.A"I.,'3II?I*I'ANAHALLI VILLAGE, ARAMANDI
g ' :<E_I\I'I:=AAN}A.HALLI POST, HONAKERE HOBLI
§\£v;!i\Gi~\§ViANGALA TALuK--571432
PRIMARY CO~OPERATI\/E AGRICULTURE AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD
A EIAGAIAANGALA
REP. 55%' ITS SECRETARY RESPONDENTS
{BY ERI. K s RAMASVVAMY IYENGAR, ADV. FOR R1;
E2 SERVED)
51
A’3\I’*I1»/
in.)
i
RSA FILED u/s. 100 OE-TCPC.”AGA1N’SwT’-_T’EilE’* it
EUDGEMENT 8L DECREE DATED} 10.’e.2008 .i?’ASSVVED’ In
R./’-\.i’\iO.31/2006 om THE FILE, 0.?-.THE».’c:1v:L”Jubzse
(SR.iDl\l.) 8.: JMFC, NAGAMANGALA’,.. “DISMIS_SI’NvG’* THE,
APPEAL AND CONFIRlVlING’_'”-~. THE JUD_GE.MEl\lT..1AND_”
DEGREE DATED: 21.7.2005 “”s«.i§AssED’:N_ ‘o.s’;N(“3, 80/2000
ON THE FILE or Ti-_iE CIv1L_”;1uD.c3E (JR._DN.)V.%& JMFC,
NAGAMANGALA. ”
THIS COMING ON Eoiii’.DiCTAT’I~i§i’eJUDGMENT, THIS
Dev THE c:ouRT l_VlADE'”i”liE”‘FOLl;Q\/\/INGis’
isludireeted against judgment in
iaA.3:Vn/E2005’cJ–.ate}ijV~.ii0«..06»…2.008 on the file of Civil Judge,
Senior Di§}isi_on,..T–Na’gaVmanga|a confirming the judgment
‘mill’ in ii0;’sT;80/2000 dated 21.07.2005 dismissing
Z-..’H’e’ard regarding admission.
3. The appellant herein filed a suit in O.S.80/2000
it ___5egaiesi: the respondent for recovery of Rs.29,753/– with
18% interest on the basis that first defendant his brother
had impersonated him as Eraiah and obtained loan from
tirie second defendant~Bani<. To obtain loan, he pledged
gregériy in fiurvey Ns3.7G/3 measuring 4 acres ar_i'£§.:S–y:;N a.
11%} measming 3 acres which pmperty __va;as4 "évi:'i:%ia"§2y
pagrchaged by him under deed Qfsaie c:'ate:;–'Li[:;8;i51';1%97§;* 'V
9.:
ma? Zi?.11.i972from his father 5§«ase1g0.x;Jdé@B1§tid’éi.j’e.a,§i’zé.a:.
Ra further aiieged that tai:iV;§’g..V..adx}’as<\t:agVe i:}j'ati._';;~.1.aVin:;:§ffM
pmximateiy reiated tga him,V__g££5§fi_m§:ted.'"tfief%Qf the saie
$935 am wedged i1:V'defendant–bank.
Ha sbiained loan of-Hvfi.s;:24;fi©Q/’;”‘v_’§:ff,”i§3.11.1987 and
R:~;,16,.3G0./5′ was not £0 his
i»3%j§:$Viz;&v:ia«,__i’:’b%;pt’:.§§§:…..represented as Eraiah and thus
ir”sf’a;>e;’5Aé:z.a:j’t:::*dV V
1% _ ‘i’%.1 e’fi’fst.’V’dé};endant denied the aiiegation and
V pieé “” Htéhat piaintiff is not Eraiah, he is
first defendant further ax/erred that his
éa-time ‘E%IaA§3ppa @ Eregowda and in that name he has
AA§;3*s:%;é23;.@é§=3d the property in question and thereafter piedged
segure Egan, The bank had instituted proceedings and
V. ._..;’€£§§3’JE§’§§ the amount, The piamtiff paid no amcunt. It is
fig :::.:§’:9 %”aa::i to dear me bank mam,
5, Parties lead evidence in which the plaintiff had
partéy examined himself as PW1 and examined twzoiother
witnesses namely PW2 Bhadregowda
Javaregowda and relied on ten documentS_.,’V_”_’~-TVhej:’ie4arne’d.,upf”
tréaé judge on examining the evidence
No’: as DWI and through: all theu_documVentsV”held’;
plaintiff was actually called”.:la’»’aregowd”aihizanldi he had
contested in the electi:onc_ in n’a._mie’.~–..Recordsxsubmitted
to the electionAcommissionVe’.;.”_l}l/ere”~e§<AaI'm.i'ned and on that
basis, it v\:as2_"'he'l;jdl1.that'plaintiff' to establish that
he was Era sallzznd'"i'2ot'3avarePovlrda.
= ' ti?eoafrdjilrigj'theloah transactions, the trial court
held it on basis of immovable property
covered' in tw'o"'–saVl_e___deeds and since no sale deeds are in
' ;th'e.uVna_:fne'o:f''''th_e first defendant; the plaintiff cannot claim
'o.n't;hat.' resultant position, the trial court dismissed
thellspftupahnéd in appeal, the appellate court also concurred
if exit-hp' finding of the trial court. Against both these
Aigiafddmentsf this appeal is filed.
2′
i
?, Learned counsel strived hard to contend that
the issue for consideration is who was the ownerr.._of._the
property in question. She would submit that___
shown that he was a purchaser of the prope–rt.yfinV ‘r:iuestio’n.~«..
The defendant was not Eraiah buti-hef}in1p.ersonat’esdw.the
plaintitt’ and obtained the lo.an-,__In other words,’ avgerrede.
that by taking advantage of appearing in
the saie deed, the i.’i’,\iiVoi.1__Vrinisusedvliiitflxpledged it
before bank consequ.e,nt bank initiated
the amount to
d ° if V
‘ ei seen that impersonation is an
incidentaliir-..grouVnd_Vtl1vat«:was raised by the plaintiff. The
o§f’oi;:;n:d__f’ «::iairne’d«.,__b_y.» the plaintiff is that amount was
‘ t:.borrowjed._the first defendant on the security of his
he had to discharge. Therefore, the suit
was..a'”VbaVre suit for recovery of money and plaintiff was
if nyreauired to establish payment of the amount by him for
on taeteaif of the first defendant. From the records, it
is seen that loan was advanced on the security of the
mrrw
xj
-5t
immovable property which property according to the
piaintéttg was owned by him. The contention ofVVtn.e”efirst
defendant that the amount due to the_;””‘ba..n_l<'.__iV4w.as.%
discharged by him is not supported by evide:rice"A-lwhei'ea's–.2
the ptaaintiifs documents i.e., Ex.F%,? to…P'A9f}showythat».
the amount to the Bank. The payrnerit is nofdoubt i;nade',
but question is whether'Vth.e:'amou'nt- misused by
the first defendant. plaintuiff virtually
failed as the plaintiff 'in:.hAi's.';cross–examination
itseif that ":iV'ds_~.y*itri«fied by people as
he had contested in
the is forth coming to show
that appears in the sale deed. In
other 'indicated in the para supra in the suit filed
ot;ei'ore- 'trial Court, question was not as to whether the
':rfeV.:owner or the defendant is the owner of the
pi"c;%pe:j%;:;x.V'.i'~"Question was whether the amount borrowed
_i'r:::n':.. Bank was taken away by the first defendant and
was unnecessarily made to discharge the said
.":EiabE%§J{:'£;2iL There is no evidence that the amount obtained as
ioan the bank was misused by the"first defendant or
"7
-,-
that it was; discharged by the plaintiff. The trial
appeiéate ceurt has rightly recorded its findirfi’
abseree of evidence that first d:er’en’daht”._ha_s”:rh§’sueed.~ the ‘
amount, no reiief could be granted, ‘InA’this”se’co.nd arpp¢a:,_k
no suastantéal question of ia.y§}”~~ariseV’forcorasitt-eératrdn. Irr’
the re§t:%t,, the appeal ,–s.tands,td’i:¥rh*é«séeti.
. \ é MM
E QQQE