High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Regular Second Appeal in Money Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. Appellant failed to establish substantial question of law regarding loan transaction and repayment.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 14:52:10

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sri M M Deverajgowda, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2018 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkamagalur in R.A.No.74/2016 and R.A.No.32/2015. The first appellate court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2015 in O.S.No.411/2008 passed by the Principal Civil Judge at Chikkamagalur, which had decreed the suit in favor of the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant had filed the original suit for recovery of money based on a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- allegedly given to the respondent/defendant, M/s Bhavani Enterprises & Saw Mills represented by Bopanna Anil Kumar. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decree, dismissing the suit. The appellant then filed this second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel (the respondent was served and unrepresented), examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the first appellate court had re-appreciated the evidence and found that the plaintiff failed to prove the loan transaction and that the defendant's signature on the document was disputed. The trial court had appointed a handwriting expert, but the report was not conclusive. The High Court held that the findings of the first appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 CPC. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court were confirmed.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The appeal challenged concurrent findings of fact in a money suit. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings were based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-10)

B) Money Suit - Loan Transaction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff claimed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/-. The trial court decreed the suit but the first appellate court reversed. The High Court upheld the reversal, noting that the plaintiff failed to prove the loan and the defendant's signature on the document was disputed. (Paras 2-8)

C) Evidence Act - Handwriting Expert - Section 45 - The trial court had appointed a handwriting expert whose report was not conclusive. The first appellate court re-appreciated evidence and found the plaintiff's case not proved. The High Court found no error in this approach. (Paras 5-7)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate court reversing the trial court's findings on issues 1,2,4,6 and additional issue 1 warrants interference under Section 100 CPC?

Final Decision

The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 03.03.2018 in R.A.No.74/2016 and R.A.No.32/2015 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkamagalur are confirmed.

Law Points

Section 100 CPC
concurrent findings of fact
substantial question of law
money suit
loan transaction
burden of proof

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (11) 27

RSA No. 1186 of 2018 (MON)

2025-11-21

Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao

Sri. Sundareshan H.C. (for appellant), Respondent served and unrepresented

Sri M M Deverajgowda

M/s Bhavani Enterprises & Saw Mills represented by Bopanna Anil Kumar

Nature of Litigation

Regular Second Appeal against judgment and decree in money suit for recovery of loan amount.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and restore the trial court's decree.

Filing Reason

Appellant claimed respondent failed to repay a loan of Rs.1,50,000/-.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit; first appellate court reversed and dismissed the suit.

Issues

Whether the first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decree? Whether any substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the first appellate court failed to properly appreciate evidence and that the trial court's findings were correct. Respondent did not appear despite service.

Ratio Decidendi

In a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The first appellate court's re-appreciation of evidence and reversal of the trial court's decree was based on proper appreciation and did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

Judgment Excerpts

This Regular Second Appeal is filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2018 in R.A.No.74/2016 and R.A.No.32/2015 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkamagalur and set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2015 in O.S.No.411/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge at Chikkamagalur. The appellant/respondent herein is the appellant/respondent before the first appellate Court.

Procedural History

The appellant filed O.S.No.411/2008 for recovery of money. The trial court decreed the suit on 28.02.2015. The respondent filed R.A.No.74/2016 and R.A.No.32/2015, which were allowed by the first appellate court on 03.03.2018, setting aside the trial court's decree. The appellant then filed this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC.