V.T.Nethaji vs V.K.Subramanyam And Brothers
2024 Latest Caselaw 5086 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

V.T.Nethaji vs V.K.Subramanyam And Brothers on 4 July, 2024

APHC011155252002
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI                    [3397]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
                    TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                               PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
                    KRISHNA RAO

                       FIRST APPEAL NO: 1135/2002

Between:

    V.T.NETHAJI

                                                        ...APPELLANT

                                  AND

   V.K.SUBRAMANYAM AND BROTHERS

                                                      ...RESPONDENT



Counsel for the Appellant:

   1. METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO



The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

-

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/defendant challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 31.03.2000, in O.S. No.45 of 1996 passed 2 VGKRJ AS 1135 of 2002

by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a Suit for recovery of money on the basis of credit katha.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.45 of 1996, are as under:

The plaintiff is a registered firm and carrying on business in yarn trade. The defendant purchased yarn from the plaintiff under credit bill No.3/33 dated 30.09.1995 worth of Rs.1,03,007.50 paise, later he failed to pay the amount due, inspite of notice. In reply notice, defendant admitted the purchase of yarn and is liable to pay the interest at 24% p.a. as per the clause in the credit bill, but only 18% p.a. interest is claimed.

5. The defendant filed written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as follows:

The defendant admitted the credit transaction with the plaintiff's firm, but pleaded the purchase of yarn was by his father and he has no independent dealings with the plaintiff's firm and his father paid total amount and also made some excess amount to the plaintiff's firm and the plaintiff firm is liable to be refunded the same and the plaintiff's firm is not the registered firm and it has no legal entity to maintain the suit.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

3 VGKRJ AS 1135 of 2002

(i) Whether the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount?

(ii) Whether the defendant paid the entire amount due to the plaintiff?

(iii) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 31.03.2000, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/ defendant in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

9. Heard Sri Metta Chandrasekhar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned trial Judge came to wrong conclusion on the presumption without supporting any material evidence in decreeing the suit and the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge is not sustainable and the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

11. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made by the appellants before this Court, the following point would arise for determination:

4 VGKRJ AS 1135 of 2002

Whether the trial court is justified in decreeing the suit and whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court requires any interference of this Court?

12. Point:

The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a registered firm and carrying on business in yarn and the defendant purchased yarn from the plaintiff under a credit bill No.3/33 dated 30.09.1995 worth of Rs.1,03,007.50 paise. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant failed to pay the amount due despite of the notice issued by the plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded that in the reply notice, the defendant admitted about purchase of yarn under credit but he failed to repay the same and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

13. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the partner of the plaintiff firm by name V.K.Mohan Sundaram is examined as PW1. To support the evidence of PW1, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. Ex.A1 is the credit bill No.3/33, dated 30.09.1995 based on which the present suit is instituted by the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the office copy of notice said to have been given by the plaintiff, Ex.A3 is the reply notice sent by the appellant dated 07.10.1996. The plaintiff also relied on firm registration and the same is marked as Ex.A4. To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on ledger statement, ledger book and relevant entry in Ex.A6 and the same are marked as Ex.A5 to Ex.A7 respectively. To substantiate the defense taken by the defendant in the written statement, the defendant and his father Thyagarajan are examined as DW1 and DW2 respectively. To support their defense, the defendant relied on Ex.B1 cheque alleged to have been issued.

5 VGKRJ AS 1135 of 2002

14. The evidence on record goes to show that the defendant purchased yarn under credit basis under Ex.A1 credit bill which is signed by the defendant. The defendant is admitting about the credit purchase made by him under Ex.A1 credit bill. The defendant pleaded that he discharged the entire amount to the plaintiff. He relied on Ex.B1 cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 10.04.1996 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Madras said to have been given by DW2 to PW1.

15. As stated supra, the defense putforth by the defendant in the written statement is that he discharged the Ex.A1 credit bill amount. The purchase of goods under Ex.A1 credit bill is not at all disputed by the appellant herein. Therefore, the duty cast on the appellant to prove the alleged discharge as pleaded by him in the written statement. To discharge his burden, the appellant examined his father V.D.Thyagarajan as DW2 and the defendant himself examined as DW1 and Ex.B1 is marked through DW2. As per the defense taken by the defendant in the written statement, he himself endorsed the cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Madras on 11.11.1995 towards discharge of Ex.A1 credit bill amount. It is quite relevant to say the amount covered under Ex.A1 credit bill is only for Rs.1,03,007.50 paise. The credit purchase is dated 30.09.1995, the time gap in between both the date of issuance of alleged cheque dated 11.11.1995 and credit purchased is approximately 40 days. It is not the case of the either of the parties that the interest of 40 days on the principal amount of Rs.1,03,007.50 paise is Rs.97,000/-. Furthermore, Ex.B1 cheque is for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Madras said to have been issued by the father of the defendant but not by the defendant. Therefore, the burden is on the defendant to prove that Ex.B1 is concerned with Ex.A1 credit transaction.

6 VGKRJ AS 1135 of 2002

16. The father of the appellant as DW2 deposed in his evidence that he gave Ex.B1 post dated cheque to PW1 and when PW1 insisted for cash, the cash was paid and received back Ex.B1 cheque with endorsement from PW1 on the back of it as cash received. It is in the evidence of DW1 that the balance amount was paid in cash and the receipt for it was promised to be given later. The evidence of DW1 coupled with Ex.B1 goes to show that the said Ex.B1 cheque was given in the month of February, 1996. The endorsement of the cheque made by the defendant as per the written statement for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was on 11.11.1995. The material on record reveals that there were several credit transactions by the defendant and his father and other members of the family with the plaintiff's firm and another V.P.K.Textires for a period of approximately 2 years and 5 suits are instituted. There is no inconsistency in between the admissions made by DW1 and DW2.

17. The defense putforth by the appellant in the written statement at initial stage itself there were several credit transactions by the appellant and his father and other members of their family with the plaintiff's firm and another firm V.P.K.Textiles for a period of about 2 years and 5 suits are instituted against them by the said two firms. Furthermore, Ex.B1 cheque was said to have been issued by DW2 as a proprietor of Malaji Fabrics, whereas the purchase under the credit bill is in the individual capacity of the defendant. As stated supra Ex.B1 cheque was said to have been given by DW2 in a capacity of proprietor of Malaji Fabrics whereas the Ex.A1 credit bill goes to show that the defendant purchased the stock under Ex.A1 credit bill in the individual capacity. Therefore, the material on record clearly goes to show that Ex.B1 payment or alleged cash payment alleged to have been made by DW2 are nothing to do with the suit transaction. Furthermore, the amount covered under Ex.B1 was 7 VGKRJ AS 1135 of 2002

shown in the ledger filed in O.S.No.46 of 1996 i.e., in another suit as per Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 relied by the plaintiff. Though the appellant admitted the credit transaction under Ex.A1 but failed to discharge the amount to the plaintiff, absolutely the alleged discharge as pleaded by the appellant is not proved by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant failed to prove the amount covered by Ex.A1 transaction was repaid by issuing Ex.B1 cheque. The material on record clearly reveals that the appellant failed to prove the alleged discharge as pleaded by the defendant in the written statement. Therefore, the alleged discharge of suit debt as pleaded by the defendant in the written statement is not at all proved by the appellant. Furthermore, though the plaintiff claimed 18% p.a. interest from the date of suit, till the date of retaliation, the learned trial Judge granted 6% p.a. interest from the date of suit till the date of realization.

18. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge, therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. The point is answered accordingly.

19. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed, by confirming the decree and Judgment dated 31.03.2000, in O.S.No.45 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I order that each party do bear their own costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.

_________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 04.07.2024 sj 8 VGKRJ AS 1135 of 2002

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT No.1135 OF 2002

Date: 04.07.2024

sj