Madras High Court
Maruthu vs Mohan on 22 June, 2023
S.A.(MD)No.315 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD)No.315 of 2023
Maruthu ... Appellant
/Vs./
1.Mohan
2.Balakrishnan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.48 of 2012,
on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi, dated 13.12.2013 confirming
the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Paramakudi, dated 31.01.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef
for Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumar
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.315 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent
findings of the Courts below. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.23 of
2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi, is the
appellant herein. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit.
The suit was filed for redemption of an alleged pledge of jewellery,
which the plaintiff claims to have pledged with the defendants and said
to have availed a loan. However, the respondents / defendants have
disputed the same and they have categorically stated that they had only
purchased the jewellery from the plaintiff and there was no pledge as
pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the
parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.
2. The trial Court framed issues based on the pleadings of the
respective parties. The primary issue was that whether the plaintiff had
pledged his jewellery with the defendants or the transaction between the
plaintiff and the defendants was only a sale transaction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.315 of 2023
3. Before the trial Court, namely, the District Munsif Court,
Paramakudi in O.S.No.23 of 2010, the plaintiff filed 4 documents, which
were marked as Exs.A1 to A4. The details of the said exhibits are as
follows:
Ex.A1 - Pledge receipt
Ex.A2 - Complaint given by the plaintiff on
01.05.2007 to the President of the Goldsmith Association
against the defendants.
Ex.A3 - A copy of the complaint given by the
plaintiff to Paramakudi Town Police Station against the
defendants.
Ex.A4 - FIR registered against the plaintiff on
16.07.2007 based on the complaint given by the
defendants and a copy of the final report submitted by the
police.
On the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined, namely,
P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is the plaintiff. P.W.2 is Backiyam, whom the
plaintiff claims to be a witness for pledge transaction. P.W.3 is Lakshmi
Kandhan, whom the plaintiff claims to be the President of Goldsmith
Association.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.315 of 2023
4. On the side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as
D.Ws.1 and 2, namely Chadramohan and Selvaraj respectively and six
documents were filed, which were marked as Exs.B1 to B6 and they are
as follows:
Ex.B1 - Sale deed dated 29.11.2007 standing
in the name of the defendants pertaining to a different
transaction, wherein the plaintiff was also involved.
Ex.B2 - Order dated 13.06.2008 passed by
this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5412 of 2008, by which a
direction was issued to the police to register an FIR
against the plaintiff.
Ex.B3 - Order passed by this Court in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7147 of 2007 dated 25.07.2007 against
the plaintiff.
Ex.B4 - A copy of the private complaint
lodged against the plaintiff by the defendants under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before the Criminal Court.
Ex.B5 - A copy of the application given by
the first defendant under the Right to Information Act
seeking for particulars relating to the plaintiff.
Ex.B6 - Acknowledgment copy with regard
to Ex.B5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.315 of 2023
5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence available on
record, the trial Court namely the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi, by
its judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.23 of 2010
held that the plaintiff has not proved that he had pledged his jewels with
the defendants and had availed a loan under Ex.A1 (alleged pledge
receipts said to have been issued by the defendants). The trial Court has
accepted the case of the defendants that it was only a sale transaction and
not a case of a pledge as pleaded by the plaintiff. The trial Court has
given a categorical finding that the plaintiff has not produced any
documents to prove that he had pledged jewels with the defendants and
had availed a loan.
6. This Court has also perused and examined Ex.A1, which was
relied upon by the plaintiff for the purpose of substantiating his claim
that he had pledged jewels with the defendants and had availed a loan.
As seen from Ex.A1, it was only a bit of paper from the plaintiff's diary
maintained by him in August 2002. The trial Court has rightly held that
the said document is not a document creating pledge and it is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.315 of 2023
admissible in evidence. The trial Court has also rightly held that it is not
a receipt issued by a pawn broker. The name of the pawn broker or the
name of the shop has also not been mentioned in Ex.A1, which will
clearly go to show that it is not a valid document, by which the pledge
was created. No receipts have been produced by the plaintiff as seen
from the evidence available on record that he had availed a loan from the
defendants by pledging his jewellery with them.
7. As seen from Ex.A1, the total weight of the jewellery is only 20
sovereigns and the number of items disclosed therein is 6, whereas in the
plaint schedule, the number of items of the jewels said to have been
pledged with the defendants is 5 and therefore, there are contradictions.
Similarly, in Ex.A2 complaint given before the President of the
Goldsmith Association by the plaintiff against the defendants, items of
jewellery mentioned therein are 9 in number, though the plaint schedule
disclosed only five items. There are several contradictions in the
statements made by the plaintiff in his pleadings as well as in his oral and
documentary evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.315 of 2023
8. On the contrary, the defendants have categorically pleaded that
there was no pledge created in their favour. But the transaction between
the plaintiff and the defendants was only a sale transaction, for which the
defendants had already paid the sale consideration to the plaintiff. The
initial burden for proving the plaintiff's claim is on the plaintiff as per
Sections 101 to 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The plaintiff has
miserably failed to discharge his initial burden, as no documentary
evidence has been produced by him to prove that he had infact pledged
the jewels with the defendants and had availed a loan. The plaintiff
cannot rely upon the weakness of the defendants case by relying upon the
deposition of the defendants during their cross examination. The trial
Court has therefore rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff
seeking for redemption of pledged jewels. The lower appellate Court,
namely the Sub Court, Paramakudi in A.S.No.48 of 2012 has also rightly
confirmed the findings of the trial Court by dismissing the first appeal
filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts
below, this second appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.315 of 2023
9. The issues raised by the plaintiff in the grounds of this second
appeal have been well considered by the Courts below only based on the
oral and documentary evidence available on record. There is no infirmity
in the findings of the Courts below, which requires further interference
by this Court under Section 100 of CPC. There are no substantial
questions of law involved in this second appeal which requires further
consideration of this Court. In the result, there is no merit in this second
appeal and accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
22.06.2023
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.315 of 2023
TO:
1.The Sub Court, Paramakudi.
2.The District Munsif Court, Paramakudi.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.315 of 2023
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Sm
Judgment made in
S.A.(MD)No.315 of 2023
Dated:
22.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
