IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2502 OF 2025 (MON)

BETWEEN:

N.R. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE R. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NO. 80, 1ST FLOOR 11TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, INDIANAGARA 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MANJUNATHA R.V.

S/O B.R. VISHWANATH Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SHARADAVANI B Location: High R/O NO. 231, 7TH A CROSS Court of Karnataka SASTRINAGAR, BSK II STAGE BENGALURU - 560 070.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANANTHA NARAYANA B.N, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.09.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.8099/2023 ON THE FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-7)., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

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 by the defendant assailing the money decree rendered in O.S.No.8099/2023.

2. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff instituted O.S. No.8099/2023 seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.5,69,287/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The case of the plaintiff is that he was acquainted with the defendant, who, citing personal financial exigencies, approached the plaintiff and received a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. It is the specific assertion of the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to repay the said amount on demand along with interest at 18% per annum. The plaintiff further pleaded that the said amount was arranged by prematurely closing his fixed deposits and by availing hand loans from his sister. According to the plaintiff, after receipt of the amount, the defendant began to evade repayment, compelling the plaintiff to repeatedly demand return of the money.

4. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, upon persistent demands, the defendant ultimately issued a cheque bearing No.000179 dated 22.02.2023 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Kothanur Branch, Bengaluru. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned unpaid with the endorsement “payment stopped by drawer”. Consequently, the plaintiff caused a legal notice dated 25.10.2023 calling upon the defendant to repay the amount. Despite service of notice, the defendant failed to comply, thereby constraining the plaintiff to institute the present suit.

5. The defendant, upon service of summons, entered appearance and filed a written statement, stoutly denying the entire claim of the plaintiff. The defendant set up a specific defence contending that the plaintiff had approached him with an intention to purchase a residential site within a budget of Rs.20,00,000/- and requested assistance in identifying a suitable property. It is the defendant’s case that, in August 2022, he showed a site bearing No.5B to the plaintiff and, after negotiations with the vendor, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.18,00,000/- with a stipulated period of 90 days for completion of the transaction.

6. The defendant further contended that since the vendor demanded an advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the plaintiff requested the defendant to arrange Rs.50,000/- towards the shortfall and to jointly enter into an agreement of sale. Accordingly, it is alleged that the plaintiff transferred Rs.1,00,000/- through NEFT and Rs.3,50,000/- by cheque, and the amount covered under cheque No.000179 dated 22.02.2023 was issued in favour of the vendor, Venugopala K.M., towards the advance sale consideration under the Agreement of Sale dated 24.08.2022. The defendant specifically pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant were co-purchasers under the said agreement and, ther