Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mr. Manjunath S., filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2011 passed by the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.15413/2006, which dismissed his suit for recovery of money. The appellant had sued the respondent, Mr. B.K. Subbarao, for recovery of ₹11,25,686/- alleging that in October 2003, while both were working at MICO, Audugodi, Bengaluru, the respondent requested a hand loan of ₹8,50,000, which the appellant lent on 30.10.2003 in the presence of witnesses. The respondent executed a promissory note and agreed to repay with interest at 18% per annum. Despite demands, the respondent failed to repay, leading to the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove the loan transaction. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the appellant (PW1) and two witnesses (PW2 and PW3), and documents such as the promissory note (Ex.P1) and loan confirmation letter (Ex.P2). The respondent (DW1) admitted receiving money but claimed it was for a business venture, not a loan. The High Court found that the appellant's evidence was consistent and credible, and the respondent's admission of receipt of money shifted the burden to him to prove repayment or that the money was not a loan. The respondent failed to discharge this burden. The High Court held that the preponderance of probabilities favored the appellant and allowed the appeal, decreeing the suit for ₹8,50,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular First Appeal - Section 96 CPC - Appeal against dismissal of suit for recovery of money - Plaintiff claimed hand loan of ₹8,50,000 given to defendant in October 2003 - Trial court dismissed suit holding plaintiff failed to prove loan - High Court reversed, holding that plaintiff's consistent evidence and defendant's admission of receipt of money shifted burden to defendant - Held that preponderance of probabilities favored plaintiff (Paras 1-20). B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Hand Loan - Plaintiff proved initial loan by oral evidence and documents - Defendant admitted receiving money but claimed it was for business - Defendant failed to prove his version - Held that once plaintiff establishes loan, burden shifts to defendant to show repayment or other purpose (Paras 15-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff proved that the defendant borrowed a sum of ₹8,50,000 and is liable to repay the same with interest.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of trial court set aside. Suit decreed for ₹8,50,000 with interest at 12% per annum from date of suit till realization. Respondent to pay costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Preponderance of probabilities
- Hand loan
- Recovery of money
- Section 96 CPC
