Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pandi Bob Richardson vs M/S Shriram Raghavendra Chits ... on 6 July, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
SECOND APPEAL No.155 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
Heard Ms.Bindu, learned counsel for Sri Madhava Rao
Nalluri, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Considering the nature of this matter, since there are no
substantial questions of law as such for consideration in the
second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C, this second appeal is
being disposed of now.
3. The 1st respondent is a registered chit fund company. The
appellant was one of the guarantors to the prized subscriber
namely, the 2nd respondent. She joined as a member in the chit
of Rs.10,00,000/- payable in 50 monthly instalments at
Rs.20,000/- p.m commencing from 18.10.2008, agreeing to all
the terms and conditions under the chit agreement. She joined
as a member of this chit on 20.06.2009. She became the prized
subscriber on 20.04.2010 being the highest bidder in the auction
and in order to draw the prize amount, apart from the appellant,
respondents 3 and 4 and Smt.Golla Sujatha, joined as guarantors
in relation thereto upon executing the required documents
namely Ex.A3-Promissory Note and Ex.A4-Guarantee Agreement
and the prize amount was received by the 2nd respondent vide
Ex.A2-Cash Voucher.
4. On account of default of the 2nd respondent, after issuing a
demand notice under Ex.A5 dated 22.05.2012, since there was no
response, the 1st respondent laid the suit for recovery of
Rs.3,03,726/- payable with future interest at 12% p.a. from the
date of suit till the date of realization against the respondents 2
to 4 and Smt.Golla Sujatha as well as the appellant, making them
jointly and severally liable.
5. The appellant resisted the claim of the 1st respondent,
raising several grounds including denial of the transactions
alleged and contending that he was made to sign on blank
documents of which he had no knowledge. He further contended
that the 2nd respondent has sufficient properties to recover and
so also other respondents as well as Smt.Golla Sujatha. Stating
that he did not receive any consideration under the suit
transaction being a guarantor, he sought to exonerate him from
the liability.
6. Upon settlement of appropriate issues, the parties went to
trial. On behalf of the 1st respondent, it's Legal Manager was
examined as PW.1, while relying on Exs.A1 to A6. The appellant
examined himself as DW.1, while relying on Exs.B1 to B4.
7. Learned trial Judge, upon considering the material and
evidence, believing and accepting the contention of the 1st
respondent, decreed the suit as prayed.
8. The appellant presented A.S.No.46 of 2018 on the file of
the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Nellore.
9. Learned appellate Judge, upon reappraisal of material and
evidence, settling appropriate points for determination, did not
accept the contention of the appellant and agreed with the
findings of the learned trial Judge. Consequently, the appeal
was dismissed with costs.
10. Ms.Bindu, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously
contended in terms with the defence set up at the trial and
pointing out the status of the appellant, only being the guarantor
to the entire transaction in question, requested to exonerate him
from the liability.
11. It is, against this backdrop, the present case has to be
considered.
12. The striking feature in this case is that the appellant
admitted his status as the guarantor along with other guarantors
namely respondents 3, 4 and Smt.Golla Sujatha. Ex.A3-
Promissory Note and Ex.A4-Guarantee Agreement relied on and
considered by the 1st respondent were the basis for both the
Courts below, to accept the claim of the 1st respondent.
13. Apart from it, learned appellate Judge considered the
admission of the appellant, in subscribing signatures to these
documents. In such an event, when the contents of the
Guarantee Agreement (Ex.A4) are to the effect that the liability
of the guarantor, is coextensive, apart from being joint and
several along with the 1st respondent, the appellant cannot now
contend that he cannot be made liable for the suit transaction.
14. Though, other contentions are advanced to the effect that
the principal borrower and other guarantors have sufficient funds
to discharge the amount due to the 1st respondent, it cannot be a
question in the backdrop of the circumstances on record, now to
consider.
15. When there are clear findings recorded by both the Courts
below based on fact upon appreciation of the evidence and
correct, this Court sitting in second appeal cannot lightly
interfere with the same. Added to it, the findings on fact
recorded by the learned appellate Judge are binding on this
Court, since it is a last Court of fact.
16. Therefore, in the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that
there are no substantial questions of law to consider and
determine in the second appeal. Therefore, this second appeal
has to be dismissed at this stage itself.
17. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
18. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
19. Miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand
closed.
20. I place my appreciation on record, the effort made by
Ms.Bindu, learned counsel for the appellant in this second
appeal, in attempting to convince this Court, of necessity to
admit the second appeal.
_____________________
M.VENKATA RAMANA, J
Date: 06.07.2021
Pab
