The judgment establishes that a defendant's failure to honor a cheque, coupled with a lack of evidence to support claims of debt repayment or land procurement, results in liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT

T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, J.

In this appeal, the defendant has challenged the judgment and decree dtd. 3/3/2014 passed in O.S.No.7645/2009 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH No.42) (for brevity 'the Trial Court').

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the plaintiffs' case are, defendant is doing Real Estate business. Plaintiffs have approached the defendant seeking his assistance for purchasing a land in and around Bangalore City. After discussion, defendant demanded Rs.13.00 lakhs from the plaintiffs to procure the lands for them and to obtain necessary permission from the Government for registration of the land. The plaintiffs reposing confidence on the defendant paid a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs on 21/11/2006 through two cheques bearing No.371925 and 371927 each for Rs.5.00 lakhs drawn on Syndicate Bank, Jayanagar III Block Branch, Bangalore. They also paid another sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs on 22/11/2006 through a cheque bearing No.292750 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Jayanagar III Block Branch, Bangalore. The said cheques have been encashed by the defendant. After encashing the money, the defendant did not contact the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs tried to approach him on many occasions, but he was taking time on one or the other pretext. However, he failed to get the land, so also permission from the Government. Hence, they demanded for repayment of amount. On 18/8/2009, the defendant issued a cheque for Rs.50, 000.00 and another cheque for Rs.2, 00, 000.00 on 5/1/2010 drawn on Kalpatharu Grameena Bank, Huskur Branch, Bommasandra, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. The plaintiffs have presented the cheque of Rs.50, 000.00 to the Bank, which came to be dishonoured. Therefore, after issuing a legal notice, the plaintiffs have filed a private complaint against the defendant. As the defendant failed to repay the entire amount of Rs.13.00 lakhs, they issued a legal notice dtd. 29/10/2009 demanding repayment with 18% interest per annum. He had sent evasive reply on 17/11/2009. Seeking recovery of Rs.13.00 lakhs and interest of Rs.7, 02, 000.00, plaintiffs have filed the instant suit.

4. The defendant has filed his written statement interalia admitting that the plaintiffs have approached him 10 years ago to procure them agricultural lands nearby Bangalore. It is contended that he got about 20 acres of land situated at Bagganadoddi village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, which forms portion of Sy.Nos.96 and 143 and the same was shown to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have asked him to get revenue records transferred in their name. In and around 2005, the plaintiffs have asked the defendant to assist them to bring the said lands under cultivation. When they started work in the said land, some interested persons interfered. Hence, he was asked to resolve the problem and to demarcate the survey numbers. In this regard, the defendant paid amount to the interested persons with the consent and assurance of plaintiffs that they will make good of it. The defendant took lot of interest and resolved the problems, carried out developmental works in making the said land fit for plantation by removing stones and boulders using machineries like earth moving equipments and human resources for raising Eucalyptus plantation. As the plaintiffs expressed desire to acquire 15 acres of land in Sy.No.96, defendant had paid an advance amount to its owners and the said amount has been reimbursed by the plaintiffs by means of cash. The defendant has spent Rs.15.00 lakhs to bring the land for cultivation. Towards repayment of it, the plaintiff had issued three cheques, two cheques for Rs.5.00 lakhs and another for Rs.3.00 lakhs. The plaintiffs asked the defendant to get phodi work in respect of Sy.Nos.96 and 143, which require huge money to deal with officials and persons. The defendant has travelled on many occasions and in this regard, the plaintiffs have paid him Rs.5