1. NYAYASRI D/O V.P. PRATAP, AGED 33 YEARS, 2 v. P. PRATAP S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, 68 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT: C/O SUBRAMANYA, ]
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19095 RSA No. 424 of 2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 424 OF 2020 (MON) BETWEEN: 1. NYAYASRI D/O V.P. PRATAP, AGED 33 YEARS, 2. V. P. PRATAP S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, 68 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT: C/O SUBRAMANYA, ] LAKSHMIPURA EXTENSION, NEAR PIONEER PUBLIC SCHOOL SAKALESHPURA TOWN / TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.
Legal Reasoning
12. There is no dispute regarding the loan borrowed by the defendants from the plaintiff-bank and further, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19095 RSA No. 424 of 2020 HC-KAR defendants have also executed the documents in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants did not repay the loan amount. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice calling upon the defendants to repay the loan amount with the interest. The defendants replied to the legal notice on untenable grounds. Admittedly, the defendants have borrowed a loan from the plaintiff for educational purposes. The defendants are liable to repay the loan amount with the interest. As there is a privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants, the defendants are under the obligation to repay the entire loan amount with the interest. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the defendants borrowed a loan for educational purposes and the defendants have failed to repay the loan amount and interest and rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19095 RSA No. 424 of 2020 HC-KAR 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Arguments
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA S N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CORPORATION BANK SAKLESHPURA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, SRI. R. SHIVA KUMAR, SAKLESHPUR-573127 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H.S. POORNIMA., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19095 RSA No. 424 of 2020 HC-KAR THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.13/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKALESHPUR DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.11.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.33/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I/c. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKALESHPUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2019 passed in R.A.No.13/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpura and the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2018 passed in O.S.No.33/2017 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpura. 2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19095 RSA No. 424 of 2020 HC-KAR The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of money. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants applied for a loan for educational purposes. The plaintiff advanced an education loan of Rs.3,92,000/- on 12.09.2005 and the defendants agreed to repay the said loan amount with the interest @10.15% per annum, compoundable with monthly interest. The defendants failed to repay the loan amount as agreed. Hence, the defendants are the defaulters. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 30.05.2016 calling upon the defendants to repay the loan amount with the accrued interest. The defendants replied to the said legal notice denying the repayment the loan amount with the interest. Hence a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for the recovery of money. 4. The defendants filed a written statement admitting the borrowing of loan from the plaintiff for educational purposes. Further, it is contended that the procedure adopted by the plaintiff for recovery of the loan - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19095 RSA No. 424 of 2020 HC-KAR amount is not proper and it is also contended that the Central Government announced that the loan availed for education, the whole interest is to be waived, but the Bank has not waived the interest. Hence, it is contended that the defendants are not entitled to pay the interest. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings framed the following issues: ISSUES 1. Whether plaintiff bank proves that, defendants have availed loan of Rs.3,92,000/- on 22-09-2005 by executing necessary documents? 2. Whether the the plaintiff bank proves defendants agreed to pay interest on the loan borrowed at the rate and in the manner stated in the plaint? that 3. Whether the plaintiff bank proves that defendants have executed balance conformation letter as stated in para 6 of the plaint? 4. Whether the defendants prove they have borrowed only Rs.3,02,890/- from the plaintiff bank and towards the loan amount they paid Rs.3,76,500/- and in view of the Government. Scheme for waving interest they are entitled to recover excess amount of Rs.73,620/-? 5. Whether plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit claim against the defendants? 6. What order or decree? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19095 RSA No. 424 of 2020 HC-KAR 6. The plaintiff, to prove its case, examined its official as PW-1 and marked 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.13. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 was examined as DW-1 and defendant No.1 was examined as DW-2 and marked two documents as Ex.D.1 and D.2. The trial Court, assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 to 3 and 5 partly in the affirmative, issue No.4 in the negative and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part with cost. It is ordered and directed that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,98,921/- together with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the amount to the plaintiff bank in one lump-sum within two months from the date of the judgment. 7. The defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.33/2017, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.13/2018, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakleshpura. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19095 RSA No. 424 of 2020 HC-KAR 8. The first appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 10.10.2019 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The defendants, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants. 10. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants have repaid the entire loan amount and the plaintiff has charged the excess interest. The judgment and the decree passed by the Court below are arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants.
Decision
ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The impugned judgments and the decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. iii) No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE BVK,RCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14