##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6351

RFA No. 1233 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1233 OF 2024 (MON)

BETWEEN:

1. MANJUNATHA .M

SON OF SRI MAHADEVAIAH

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

NOW RESIDING AT NO. 105, 2^ND MAIN

NAGARABHAVI 2^ND STAGE

NGEF LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI

BANGALORE - 560 072.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PRADEEP C. YADAV, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. OMKAR PATEL

SON OF LATE SIDDARAMAPPA

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

Digitally signed

by AL BHAGYA RESIDING AT 3417/15, OPP TO

Location: HIGH MARUTHI MEDICALS, ATTIGUPPE

COURT OF

KARNATAKA METRO STATION, VIJAYANAGAR

BANGALORE - 560 040.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. KRISHNA S. VYAS, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2024

PASSED IN OS.NO.805/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LIX

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,

DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVER OF MONEY.

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6351

RFA No. 1233 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the appellant -

defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated

29.01.2024 passed in O.S.No.805/2023 on the file of the

LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore

(CCH-60).

2. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties

are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under;

The plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking

recovery of a sum of Rs.24,00,000/-, being the interest

claimed on the principal amount of Rs.25,00,000/- paid by

him, calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from time to

time.

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6351

RFA No. 1233 of 2024

HC-KAR

4. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the

defendant, claiming to be the absolute owner of the

property bearing No.3421/A, AAA Municipal No.9, situated

on 30 Feet Road, Vijayanagar Main Road, RPC Layout,

Bengaluru, offered to sell the said property to the plaintiff

for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,15,00,000/-. Pursuant

thereto, the plaintiff paid an advance sale consideration of

Rs.25,00,000/- to the defendant through a cheque dated

22.12.2017 drawn on M/s. Shymrao Vittal Co-operative

Bank. The plaintiff has averred that despite receipt of a

substantial amount, the defendant failed to execute a

formal agreement of sale. Subsequently, the plaintiff came

to know that the defendant, without honouring the oral

understanding, had alienated the property in favour of a

third party. Consequently, the plaintiff demanded refund of

the advance amount.

5. It is further pleaded that despite repeated

demands, the defendant refunded only the principal

amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and that too after issuance of a

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6351

RFA No. 1233 of 2024

HC-KAR

legal notice, by making payments during the months of

February, March and April 2022. According to the plaintiff,

no interest was paid on the said amount, though the

defendant had retained the money since December 2017.

As the defendant allegedly refused to pay interest, the

plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit.

6. Upon service of summons, the defendant entered

appearance and filed a written statement, wherein the

averments made in the plaint were stoutly denied.

7. The defendant on the contrary claimed that he

had availed hand loan and therefore, seriously disputed

the agreed sale transaction between the plaintiff and the

defendant. Defendant on the contrary contended that he

was in urgent needs of funds to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs

and therefore approached plaintiff seeking an assistance of

hand loan on 22.12.2017. Defendant also disputed the

alleged sale transaction in the form on agreement for sale

and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6351

RFA No. 1233 of 2024

HC-KAR

8. In order to substantiate his claim, the plaintiff

examined himself as P.W.1 and produced five documents,

which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document