The above first appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w

Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') by the Defendants

challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 03.07.2012

3

passed in O.S. No.1519/2005, whereunder the suit filed by

the Plaintiff for recovery of money has been decreed

holding that the Plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.10 lakhs

from the Defendants together with interest @ 21% per

annum from the date of the suit till date of realization.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3.

It is the case of the Plaintiff that Defendant

No.1 - Firm requested for and availed a loan of Rs.10 lakhs

on 28.02.2022 from him for the purpose of its business.

The Defendant No.1-Firm is represented by its partners -

Defendant Nos.2 and 3. Sri Yogesh Palke was another

partner of the Firm, and after his death on 27.08.2004,

Defendant Nos.4 and 5 being his son and wife have been

arrayed as parties to the suit as legal representatives of

the said Sri.Yogesh Palke. Defendant No.4 is also a

partner of defendant No.1.

4

3.1. It is the case of the Plaintiff that upon the

representation of Sri Yogesh Palike and Defendant Nos.2 to

4, the plaintiff advanced the said financial assistance to

Defendant No.1. Various documents i.e., 10 promissory

notes of Rs.1 lakh each, all dated 28.02.2002 have been

executed in this regard by Late Yogesh Palke as Managing

Partner of the Defendant No.1 firm in favour of the Plaintiff

and

also

corresponding

consideration

receipts

acknowledging the receipt of the entire consideration of

Rs.10 lakh agreeing to repay the loan amount on demand

with interest @ 21% per annum. That as a security, late

Yogesh Palke and defendant Nos.1 to 4 executed a Deed of

Hypothecation on 28.02.2002 which was handed over to

the Plaintiff with a covering letter. That the said Yogesh

Palke also sent a letter 05.03.2002 to the Plaintiff

acknowledging the said sum of Rs.10 lakhs. That since

Defendants did not repay the money advanced by the

Plaintiff, the suit was filed for recovery of money.

5

4.

The

Defendants

entered

appearance

and

contested the case of the Plaintiffs by filing the written

statement. The Defendant No.2 filed Written Statement

and Defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5 adopted the written

statement of Defendant No.2. The Defendants have denied

the case of the Plaintiff in detail. It is contended that

taking undue advantage of the death of late Yogesh Palke,

the Plaintiff has filed the suit. The Defendants denied the

availment of loan of Rs.10 lakhs by late Yogesh Palke on

behalf of Defendant No.1-Firm. It is the further contention

of the Defendants that the Plaintiff being a professional

money lender, the suit is filed by him without money

lending licence and therefore, the Court has no territorial

jurisdiction to try the suit and prays for dismissal of the

suit with costs.

4.1. It is the further case of the Defendants that

on 22.03.2000 late Yogesh Palke availed loan of Rs.10

lakhs from the father of the Plaintiff and obtained

signatures of late Yogesh Palke and other Defendants on

6

several printed letterheads as also on blank stamp papers

and on demand promissory notes as well as on blank post

dated cheques. That the loan amount has been re-paid to

the Plaintiff through cheque by Defendant No.2. That after

discharge of the loan amount by Defendant No.2, Plaintiff

did not return the documents taken from them and that by

taking undue advantage, the Plaintiff has misused the

same.

5.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial

Court framed 8 issues. Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1

and Exs.P1 to P44 were marked in evidence. Defendant

No.2 examined himself as DW.1. However, no documents

have been marked by the Defendants. The Trial Court

upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence

on record, decreed the suit of the Plaintiff and passed the

following Order:

"i) The suit filed by the Plai