IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 355 OF 2024 (MON)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. K. MURUGAN S/O SRI. KANDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT SERKADU KUTT ROAD SERKADU POST (VIA), SLR AND T C VELLUR DISTRICT TAMIL NADU STATE-632 115.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH BABU .B.N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. JAYARAJU S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS Digitally signed RESIDING AT NO. 12 by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COLLEGE ROAD, SRINIVASA LAYOUT COURT OF KARNATAKA SIR. M. VISVESWARAIAH EXTENSION HOSKAOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.T. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.11.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.6716/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, 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 filed by the appellant -

defendant assailing the money decree vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.6716/2017 on the file of the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru.

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

3. Facts leading to the case are as under;

The respondent–plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery contending that the defendant, being his close relative, had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- on 17.07.2005 and a further sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 10.11.2005 for business purposes. It is specifically pleaded that the said amounts were paid through two cheques, namely Cheque No.732917 dated 12.07.2005 for Rs.1,75,000/- and Cheque No.745270 dated 10.11.2005 for Rs.1,25,000/-, both drawn on Canara Bank. The plaintiff averred that reposing utmost confidence in the defendant owing to their close relationship, he advanced the aforesaid amounts out of his retirement benefits. It is further pleaded that though the defendant allegedly utilized the hand loan amounts for business and prospered, he failed to repay the loan together with interest as promised. It is the case of the plaintiff that, upon intervention of elders and well-wishers, a Memorandum of Understanding came to be executed on 19.01.2009 under which the defendant acknowledged liability to repay a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. Despite the said understanding, the defendant allegedly failed to discharge the liability compelling the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 10.06.2010 demanding repayment of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 3% per month. Hence, the suit came to be filed seeking recovery of money.

4. Upon service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement vehemently denying the plaintiff’s claim. The defendant specifically contended that the suit is barred by limitation asserting that the alleged loan transactions pertain to the year 2005, whereas the suit was instituted only in the year 2017. The defendant categorically denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and disputed the alleged transactions as well as the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit was sought.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues. In order to substantiate his claim, the plaintiff examined himself and produced documentary evidence. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.01.2009 was marked as Ex.P.1. The plaintiff also relied upon the legal notice, postal acknowledgments, and bank account extracts, which were marked as Exs.P.2 to P.4.

6. Though the defendant had seriously disputed the alleged hand loan transaction as well as the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.01.2009, he did not choose to step into the witness box nor lead any rebuttal evidence. I