Case Note & Summary
The appellant/defendant, Madhukar alias Babanrao Ganpat Sabnis, a landlord, appealed against the concurrent decrees in a money suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, Smt. Kantabai wd/o Shankarrao Sangole. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 23,400 with interest at 18% per annum based on an alleged loan. The trial court decreed the suit on 13.9.1993 in Regular Civil Suit No.30/1991, and the appeal was dismissed by the Extra Joint District Judge, Amravati on 3.2.1999 in Regular Civil Appeal No.4/1994. The appellant challenged the concurrent findings as perverse. The High Court found that the courts below had ignored material evidence, including the plaintiff's admission that she had received Rs. 10,000 from the defendant after the suit, which indicated repayment. The court held that the findings were perverse and liable to be set aside. The appeal was allowed, the suit was dismissed, and the rate of interest was reduced to 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Perverse Findings - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact if they are perverse, i.e., based on no evidence or ignoring material evidence. In this case, the courts below ignored the defendant's evidence of repayment and the plaintiff's admission regarding receipt of money, making the findings perverse. (Paras 1-10) B) Contract Law - Loan Repayment - Burden of Proof - Sections 34, 36 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The plaintiff must prove the loan and non-repayment. Here, the plaintiff admitted receiving Rs. 10,000 from the defendant after the suit, which indicated repayment, but the courts below erroneously held otherwise. (Paras 5-8) C) Interest - Rate of Interest - Section 34 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The rate of interest of 18% per annum from the date of suit was held to be excessive and reduced to 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are perverse and liable to be interfered with in second appeal, particularly regarding the repayment of loan and the rate of interest.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 13.9.1993 in RCS No.30/1991 and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 3.2.1999 in RCA No.4/1994 are set aside. The suit of the respondent/plaintiff stands dismissed. However, the appellant/defendant is directed to pay the respondent/plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10,000 (which was deposited by the appellant) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization.
Law Points
- Perverse findings of fact
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Interference in second appeal
- Burden of proof
- Loan repayment
- Interest rate
- Section 34 CPC
