R. K. SHIVANANDA VS. BELLULLI SHIVASHANKARAPPA ALIAS GURUSIDDAPPA

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner namely Sri P. Manjunath holding brief for Sri R. Gopal and Sri V. S. Biju holding brief for Sri Jagadeesh Mundargi, learned Counsel for the respondent.

( 2 ) THIS revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act arises from the judgment and decree dated 24-11-1992 whereby the learned Civil Judge while exercising the powers under Small Causes Courts Act, dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 876. 10 ps.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFFS case was that the defendant had borrowed on 29-6-1991 a sum of Rs. 6,000/- with promise to return the sum within two or three days, but did not return the same. Instead, on 29-9-1991 he further borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and the defendant assured the plaintiff-revision petitioner that he will return Rs. 10,000/- with interest at the rate of 2% per month till the date of payment. The plaintiff has further alleged that on 9-11-1991, defendant-respondent had paid back a sum of Rs. 9,400/- by cheque drawn on Urban co-operative Bank, Vijayalaxmi Road Branch and assured to pay the balance by 11-11-1991, but did not do so. The plaintiff-revision petitioner got notice issued to the defendant and the defendant gave a false reply. The plaintiff claimed a decree for a sum of Rs. 876. 10 ps. Defendant filed a written statement. He admitted to have taken Rs. 10,000/ -. e. , Rs. 6,000/- + rs. 4,000/ -. He denied that he ever agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month. The case of the defendant further is that the plaintiff refused to execute the agreement as per the agreed terms and conditions. The plaintiff demanded back Rs. 10,000/- saying that he would vacate the premises. Defendant's further case is that the plaintiff-revision petitioner was in need of a house. He approached the defendant for giving his house bearing No. 67/3 measuring 15ft. x 15ft. situated at Belludi Galli, Davanagere. The plaintiff agreed to occupy the house on a rent of Rs. 400/- per month and further agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards security deposit. This happened sometimes on 29-9-1991. On account of that the plaintiff had given a cheque of rs. 6,000/- on 29-9-1991, the plaintiff was given the key of the house. He performed the pooja with an intention to occupy the house. On 22-10-1991, he paid Rs. 4,000/- and further agreed to execute rent agreement as per terms and conditions. The plaintiff got the agreement typed on a stamp paper and gave a copy to the defendant. The defendant, after going through the contents of the agreement, raised objections about certain conditions in that agreement. Thereupon, the plaintiff refused to execute the agreement as per agreed terms and conditions and demanded back the advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- saying that he would vacate the premises. Thereupon, the defendant also agreed for cancellation of such agreement. The defendant further alleged that the defendant had incurred expenses of Rs. 400/- for repairs of the house and he was also entitled to receive rent of Rs. 400/- for one month rent. Later on, parties came to terms that a sum of Rs. 600/- be deducted namely Rs. 400/- towards rent and Rs. 200/- for repair charges and after deduction thereof, defendant issued a cheque of Rs. 9,400/- in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner in full satisfaction. Therefore, the defendant-respondent denied his liability to pay any further sum.

( 4 ) TRIAL Court framed the issues which are as under.

(1) Whether plaintiff proves that defendant borrowed hand loan of Rs. 10,000/-as contended in the plaint? (2) Whether plaintiff further proves that the defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 2% per month? (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 876. 10 ps. from the defendant? (4) Whether the defendant proves that he issued cheque for Rs. 9,400/- towards the repayment of advance amount under contract of lease? (5) What orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document