Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent (plaintiff) against the appellant (defendant) in O.S.No.11/2003 before the trial court. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant borrowed Rs.45,120/- and executed a promissory note. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendant appealed to the lower appellate court in R.A.No.11/2006, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree. Aggrieved, the defendant filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court considered whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that both courts below had concurrently found that the plaintiff proved the loan and the promissory note. The defendant's defense was that the promissory note was obtained by coercion, but no evidence was led. The High Court held that the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. Therefore, no substantial question of law existed, and the appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the decree for recovery of Rs.45,120/- with interest.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court held that in a second appeal, the court can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such error. (Paras 1-10)
B) Evidence Act - Promissory Note - Section 118 - Presumption - The trial court and lower appellate court concurrently held that the plaintiff proved the execution of the promissory note and the loan transaction. The defendant's denial was not supported by evidence. The High Court upheld these findings. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and trial court. The suit for recovery of Rs.45,120/- with interest was upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- promissory note
- recovery of money
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (02) 4
Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
K.M. Sanath Kumar (for appellant), V.N. Madhava Reddy (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff (respondent) sought recovery of Rs.45,120/- with interest from the defendant (appellant).
Filing Reason
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant borrowed money and executed a promissory note, but failed to repay.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in O.S.No.11/2003 on 25.11.2005. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal in R.A.No.11/2006 on 06.01.2007, confirming the decree.
Issues
Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the lower courts erred in decreeing the suit without proper evidence.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arises.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such error.
Judgment Excerpts
The present appellant was the appellant in the Court of Prl. Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Srirangapatna (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘Lower Appellate Court) in R.A.No.11/2006 and was also the defendant in the Court of Civil Judge(Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Srirangapatna (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘trial court’) in O.S.No.11/2003.
The present respondent had instituted a suit against the appellant/defendant in the trial court in the said O.S.No.11/2003 seeking for recovery of a sum of Rs.45,120/- with interest thereupon.
Procedural History
The respondent filed O.S.No.11/2003 in the trial court for recovery of money. The trial court decreed the suit on 25.11.2005. The appellant appealed to the lower appellate court in R.A.No.11/2006, which dismissed the appeal on 06.01.2007. The appellant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC in the High Court, which was dismissed on 27.02.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 118
