Back
M. G. UMA
Shashi Rekha W/o Late S. T. Kumaraswamy – Appellant
Versus
S. H. Basavarajaiah S/o S. H. Srikantamurthy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.G. UMA, J.
1. The appellants being defendants in O.S. No. 49 of 2006 have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009 passed in R.A. No. 336 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ for brevity) wherein, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2007 passed in O.S. No. 49 of 2006 on the file of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Turuvekere (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), which has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.
3. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 28.07.2010 and the following substantial question of law was formulated:
4. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 49 of 2006 against the defendants-appellants for recovery
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a money lender without a license is barred from maintaining a suit under the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961.
The provision of clear documentation in loan transactions is essential for recovery, and the burden of proof lies with the debtor to demonstrate repayment.
The court affirmed that a money lender must have a valid license, but the absence of a license does not invalidate a loan agreement if the lender is not engaged in money lending as a business.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
