The court affirmed that the suit for loan recovery was not barred by limitation, as per Section 20 of the Limitation Act, highlighting errors by the appellate court in assessing evidence.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012 passed in R.A.No.80/2012 by the Learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of money of Rs.60,000/- with interest. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a contractor by profession and also doing a business. The husband of defendant No.1 by the name P.Raju is known to the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of defendant No.1 and deceased P.Raju, who passed away on 03.11.2006. It is contended that P.Raju took a hand loan of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.05.2006 and agreed to repay the said loan amount within 4 months. The plaintiff requested deceased P.Raju to repay the loan amount, but the deceased Raju has not repaid the loan amount. On 08.10.2006, P.Raju issued a post dated cheque bearing No.133358 dated 04.12.2006, drawn on Canara Bank, Kargal branch, in plaintiff's favour and the said fact was known to the defendants. The plaintiff presented the said cheque for encashment. The said cheque returned with an endorsement stating "withdrawal stopped owing to death". After receipt of endorsement of the bank, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 08.12.2006, calling upon the defendants to repay the loan with interest. The defendants did not reply to the legal notice. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery of money. Accordingly, he prays to decree the suit.

4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also regarding the borrowing of a loan of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff and also the issuance of a cheque by P.Raju. It is contended that P.Raju has not availed any loan at any point in time. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit.

5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues.

ISSUES

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 20.05.2006?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover suit claim of Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 18% pa from the defendant?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

4) What decree or order?

6. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1 and marked 7 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and marked 2 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D2.

7. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and on the assessment of both verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 partly in the affirmative, issue No.3 in the negative and issue No.4 as per the final order. 8. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs, and it was ordered and directed that the defendants are liable to pay the loan amount of Rs.60,000/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of loan till actual realization.

9. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2012 passed in O.S.No.306/2009 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar preferred appeal in R.A.No.80/2012 on the file of the Learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar.

10. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for t