[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Kerala State Beverages (M & M) ... vs Smt.Vanaja Sajeevan on 13 February, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
R.F.A.No.24 of 2017
1
2026:KER:13110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
RFA NO. 24 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.08.2016 IN OS NO.331 OF 2011
OF SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M & M) CORPORATION
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, H. VENKITESH IPS, AGED
45 YEARS, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)(NOW SHIFTED TO BEVCO TOWER,
P.M.G. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033)
BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 SMT.VANAJA SAJEEVAN
W/O LATE V.K.SAJEEVAN, VELOOR HOUSE, KUNDUNGASSERY,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DIST (NOW RESIDING AT C/O
PM KISHOR, PARUTHIYEZHATH HOUSE, MANAKKAPARAMBU, 10TH
MILE, UDAYAMPEROOR, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 307
2 DIVYA SAJEEV
D/O LATE V.K.SAJEEVAN, VELOOR HOUSE, KUNDUNGASSERY,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DIST (NOW RESIDING AT C/O
PM KISHOR, PARUTHIYEZHATH HOUSE, MANAKKAPARAMBU, 10TH
MILE, UDAYAMPEROOR, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 307
3 SANJEEV SAJEEV
S/O LATE V.K.SAJEEVAN, VELOOR HOUSE, KUNDUNGASSERY,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (NOW RESIDING AT
R.F.A.No.24 of 2017
2
2026:KER:13110
C/O P.M KISHOR, PARUTHIYEZHATH HOUSE, MANAKKAPARAMBU,
10TH MILE, UDAYAMPEROOR, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 307
4 BANK OF INDIA
ERNAKULAM BRANCH, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, KOCHI.682 031.
BY ADVS.
SMT.S.LEELALAKSHMI FOR R1, R3
SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL FOR R1, R3
SRI.T.J.THOMAS FOR R4
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
10.02.2026, THE COURT ON 13.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.F.A.No.24 of 2017
3
2026:KER:13110
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
RFA No.24 OF 2017
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The appellant, the Kerala State Beverages (M&M)
Corporation Ltd., is the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of
money. By the judgment impugned, the learned Sub Judge,
Ernakulam, disallowed the claim in the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.
The plaintiff alleges that one V.K. Sajeevan, the
predecessor-in-interest of the party defendants, was the
Shop In-charge of FL-1 Shop No.7017/2010-11 at Ravipuram.
When stock verification was conducted at the said shop on
31.10.2010, it was noticed that the entries in the stock
register did not tally with the billing machine printout and
that corrections had been made in the stock register.
Consequently, an audit was conducted at the shop, which
2026:KER:13110
revealed that the actual physical stock did not tally with
the stock records. Thereafter, on 24.01.2011, the District
Audit Team conducted a physical verification of the entire
stock at the shop, which disclosed that the counterfoils of
the challans obtained from the bank after remittance of the
daily collection, had been manipulated. Again, on
29.01.2011, the District Audit Team visited the shop for
verification in order to ascertain whether there were any
further manipulations.
3. On the following day (30.01.2011), at midnight, a
fire broke out in the shop. The fire was extinguished by the
Fire Force, the Police and local residents, though minor
damage was caused to the shop and the documents maintained
therein. The Shop In-charge, V.K. Sajeevan was present when
the fire was put out. However, a couple of hours later, V.K.
Sajeevan committed suicide by hanging himself in a nearby
lodge room. Meanwhile, verification of records allegedly
revealed that V.K. Sajeevan had misappropriated a sum of
Rs.47,53,388/- during the period from 24.08.2008 to
29.01.2011 by manipulating the accounts of the shop. On the
2026:KER:13110
basis of these allegations, the suit was instituted against
defendants 1 to 3, the legal representatives of V.K.
Sajeevan, alleging that they had inherited 10 cents of land
together with the building standing thereon belonging to
V.K. Sajeevan under Document No.2729/1990 of Njarakkal Sub
Registry. The Bank of India, where the remittances were
allegedly made by V.K. Sajeevan, was impleaded as defendant
No.4.
4. The party defendants resisted the suit contending
that V.K. Sajeevan was not the Shop In-charge and that he
was not responsible for any misappropriation or other
manipulations alleged in the plaint. According to them, the
suit was filed with a malicious intent to shield the erring
officials who continue in service by placing the entire
blame on the late V.K. Sajeevan. They challenged the
genuineness of the statements prepared by the Audit Team and
the other records relied upon by the plaintiff. It was
specifically alleged that the superior officers of the
plaintiff and the Audit Team fabricated and manipulated
statements and challans in such a manner as to fasten the
2026:KER:13110
entire liability upon V.K. Sajeevan.
5. During trial, the plaintiff examined PW1, one of
the officers who conducted the audit and inspection, and
marked Exts.A1 to A30. The defendants did not adduce any
evidence. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff had
failed to prove that V.K. Sajeevan was the Shop In-charge of
the shop in question during the period from 01.09.2008 to
28.11.2011, and accordingly disallowed the plaint claim.
6. We have heard Sri T. Naveen, learned Standing
Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, and Sri G. Rajagopal,
learned counsel for the party defendants/respondents 1 to 3.
7. In view of the rival contentions, the principal
point for determination is whether the late V.K. Sajeevan
had misappropriated Rs.47,53,388/- during the period from
24.08.2008 to 29.01.2011 by fabricating the accounts of the
plaintiff.
8. The substance of the allegation against V.K.
Sajeevan is set out in paragraph 11 of the plaint, which
reads as follows:
"11. The Shop In Charge Mr.V.K.Sajeevan made
manipulations in bank remittance chalan as well as
2026:KER:13110
made short remittances during the period from 24-
8-2008 to 29-1-2011. On verification it is
revealed the said Sajeevan made 187 manipulations
in the bank remittance chalan as well as by making
short remittances during the above period and the
amount misappropriated in that account is
Rs.43,07,609/-. The detailed statement of the
above manipulation prepared by Mr.E.M.Rockey,
Member, D.A.T., Tripunithura is produced along
with the list of documents. Again the said
V.K.Sajeevan manipulated sales collection
statements by over writing the actual amount with
lesser amount during the period from 24-8-2008 to
29-1-2011 and thereby caused a loss of
Rs.3,39,745/-. The detailed statement of the above
manipulation prepared by Mr.E.M.Rockey, Member,
D.A.T. Tripunithura is produced along with the
list of documents. Similarly the said Sajeevan
manipulated an amount of Rs.1,06,034/- during the
period from 24-8-2008 to 29-1-2011 by tearing the
date portion of the sales statement of a previous
day with lesser sales amount and affixing a
desired date of higher sales amount. Detailed
statement of the said manipulation prepared by
Mr.E.M.Rockey, Member, D.A.T., Tripunithura is
produced along with the list of documents. Thus
V.K.Sajeevan who was the Shop In Charge
misappropriated an amount of Rs.47,53,388/- from
FL 1 Shop No.7017/2010-2011 at Ravipuram in
Ernakulam Village belonging to the plaintiff
Corporation."
It is evident from the above pleadings that, according to
the plaintiff, V.K. Sajeevan was responsible for the amount
claimed in the plaint, it being alleged that he manipulated
187 bank remittance challans and thereby effected short
remittances amounting to Rs.47,53,388/- during the period
from 24.08.2008 to 29.01.2011.
2026:KER:13110
9. Exts.A4 to A9 series are principally relied upon by
the plaintiff to establish the alleged fabrications
committed by V.K. Sajeevan. Ext.A4 is a series of bank
remittance slips and corresponding vouchers of the plaintiff
for the period from 25.08.2008 to 23.11.2009. Ext.A5
contains similar slips and vouchers for the subsequent
period. Ext.A6 is the Bank Remittance Register for the
period from April 2007 to March 2009. Ext.A7 is a similar
register for the period from May 2009 to November 2009.
Ext.A8 is the statement of account of the plaintiff
maintained with Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Ravipuram Branch,
for the period from 01.09.2008 to 28.11.2011. Ext.A9 is a
statement prepared by PW1 on the basis of the said records
indicating the alleged shortfall in remittances.
10. PW1, a member of the District Audit Team who
inspected the shop in question and prepared the Ext.A9
series statement after comparing the Bank Remittance
Register, the challans and the bank account statements for
the relevant period, explained in his proof affidavit that
the daily collection from the shop was required to be
2026:KER:13110
remitted in the bank by filling up a printed pay-in slip
together with a bank voucher. The payment slip/voucher was
to be retained in the office after obtaining the bank seal.
The Shop In-charge was also required to enter the details of
the remittance in the Bank Remittance Register on the same
day. According to PW1, by manipulating the entries in the
payment slips/vouchers and in the Bank Remittance Register,
V.K. Sajeevan effected short remittances on various dates
and misappropriated substantial amounts. This, according to
him, is borne out by Ext.A8, the bank account statement for
the period from 01.09.2008 to 28.11.2011. He further deposed
that the turnover during the relevant period is evident from
the Sales Collection Statements (Exts.A1 series and A2
series).
11. We have examined Exts.A6 and A7. In Ext.A6, the Bank
Remittance Register, the name of the remitter is shown in
Column No.2 as V.K. Sajeevan. Column No.3 describes the
remitter's designation as "Shop In-charge" in certain places
(for example, at page No.3), and in other places as "SIC",
evidently an acronym for the same. It is also seen from
2026:KER:13110
Exts.A6 and A7 that certain other persons made remittances
in the bank on some occasions. However, their designation
shown in Column No.3 is not as Shop In-charge.
12. The entries in the Bank Remittance Registers prima
facie disclose overwriting on various dates by correction of
the figures shown as remitted in the bank. It is submitted
by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that most of such
overwriting occurred on the days on which V.K. Sajeevan had
purportedly made the remittance. According to the plaintiff,
Sajeevan fabricated entries in 187 documents. Significantly,
PW1 deposed that he was acquainted with the handwriting of
the deceased V.K. Sajeevan and the entries in Exts.A4 to A7
were made by Sajeevan in his own handwriting. Exts.A6 and A7
are printed registers with consecutive page numbers and
appear to have been maintained in the regular course of
business. When the difference in the actual amount remitted
in the bank is evident from Exts.A4, A5 and A8, and it
appears from Exts.A6 and A7 that higher amounts were shown
on multiple occasions by the person making entries in the
Remittance Registers, it may be inferred prima facie that
2026:KER:13110
the person who made such entries deliberately fabricated
them to cover up short remittances and that the amounts not
remitted in respect of the respective transactions were
misappropriated by that person.
13. Sri G. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for
defendants 1 to 3, vehemently assailed the veracity of
Ext.A9 on the ground that it was not signed by the other
members of the Audit Team. In fact, Ext.A9 by itself does
not demonstrate that V.K. Sajeevan is responsible for the
amount claimed in the plaint. On the other hand, Ext.A9 is
only a tabulated statement prepared to present, at a glance,
the actual remittances and the short remittances on various
dates from 24.08.2008 to 29.01.2011.
14. The learned counsel for the party defendants further
contended that the authenticity of the handwriting in the
registers and other documents as that of V.K. Sajeevan was
stoutly denied in cross-examination, and that it was
elicited from PW1 that the files from the said shop were not
forwarded to him in the regular course of business, thereby
2026:KER:13110
suggesting that he had no acquaintance with Sajeevan's
handwriting. We are unable to accept this contention. As per
Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the Court has to
form an opinion as to the person by whom a document was
written or signed, the opinion of a person acquainted with
the handwriting is a relevant fact. PW1, a senior official
of a public sector undertaking, deposed on oath that he was
acquainted with the handwriting of V.K. Sajeevan and the
registers and remittance slips were prepared by Sajeevan in
his own handwriting. He had conducted an inspection at the
shop where V.K. Sajeevan was working and belonged to the
District office under which Sajeevan was employed.
Therefore, it may be difficult to disbelieve his testimony,
notwithstanding the version that the files were not
regularly forwarded to his office from the said shop. A
senior officer may have several occasions to become
acquainted with the handwriting of subordinate staff
members. As already observed, the records in question appear
to have been maintained in the regular course of business by
the officials of the plaintiff department.
2026:KER:13110
15. The official designation of V.K. Sajeevan was
"Helper". On that basis, it was argued that, in the absence
of cogent records, it could not be held that he was the Shop
In-charge. However, PW1 clearly explained that although his
designation was Helper, he had been functioning as the Shop
In-charge and, in that capacity, made the relevant entries
in the records, remitted the amounts in the bank and
committed the alleged misappropriation. When the plaintiff
has prima facie established that those records were written
in the handwriting of V.K. Sajeevan, and when those very
records describe him as the Shop In-charge, the question as
to his formal designation may not be of much significance.
16. Apart from that, Ext.A10, the Register of Office
Orders of the Ravipuram FL-1 shop, prima facie shows that
V.K. Sajeevan had been acting as the Shop In-charge even
prior to the relevant period. For instance, at page No.24,
his name is shown as Shop In-charge. Ext.A10 further
indicates that office orders were issued by the person
designated as Shop In-charge or by those to whom charge was
temporarily entrusted.
2026:KER:13110
17. In a civil suit, the plaintiff is required to
establish his case on a preponderance of probabilities. The
Court must examine whether the case presented is probable.
However, in the present case, the trial court appears to
have proceeded on an entirely different footing. It was
unduly influenced by the contention of the party defendants
that there was no formal document evidencing the appointment
of V.K. Sajeevan as Shop In-charge. The court concluded
that, in the absence of a record or order showing that he
was appointed as Shop In-charge and made responsible for
remitting amounts in the bank and making entries in the
records, he could not be held liable for the alleged
misappropriation. The effect of the entries in Exts.A4 to
A8, and the oral evidence of PW1 that those entries were
made by V.K. Sajeevan in his own handwriting, should have
been considered by the trial court. The court also found
fault with the plaintiff for not producing certain
additional documents. While production of such documents,
including inspection reports, might have strengthened the
plaintiff's case, Exts.A4 to A8 could not have been ignored
2026:KER:13110
completely. The trial court further issued a series of
directions to the plaintiff regarding the manner in which
proceedings should be initiated against an erring officials,
perhaps in its anxiety to render complete justice. Such
directions are beyond the scope of a civil suit for recovery
of money. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view
that the judgment of the trial court is liable to be set
aside and the matter requires a fresh consideration.
18. There is one more reason for remitting the case for
fresh disposal. Sri G. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the
defendants, submitted that the documents in question were
produced before the court for the first time only during
trial and that, consequently, the defendants were deprived
of a proper opportunity to effectively contest them. This
submission is not seriously disputed by the appellant. We
also note that Exts.A4 to A8 were not produced along with
the plaint. In the above circumstances, we consider it just
and proper to remit the case for fresh disposal, after
affording both parties opportunity to adduce further
evidence.
2026:KER:13110
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment is set aside. The suit is remanded for fresh
consideration, untrammelled by any of the observations
contained in this judgment. Both parties shall be at liberty
to adduce further evidence. We trust that the trial court
will make every endeavour to dispose of the suit
expeditiously. The appellant shall be entitled to a full
refund of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal.
The parties shall appear before the trial court on
31/03/2026.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
