Syed Tarabee vs M/S. Sarada Chit Funds Co.
2021 Latest Caselaw 1431 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

                       A.S.No. 1746 OF 2000

J U D G M E N T:

This is an Appeal filed against the Decree and Judgment in

O.S.No. 63 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil

Judge, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.

The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents

herein are the defendants in the suit. For convenience sake, the

parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

The brief facts of the case are that the 1st defendant is a

registered firm engaged in chit fund business. Defendant Nos. 2 to

7 are the partners of the firm. The 2nd defendant is the foreman in

the business. The plaintiff joined as subscriber in chit group No.

SML 8 with ticket No.18 and chit amount Rs.2,00,000/- at

Rs.4,000/- per month for fifty months, commencing from

06-02-1992. The plaintiff paid 31 installments amounting to

Rs.1,24,000/- and obtained receipts from the 2nd defendant. A

sum of Rs.28,600/- towards installments from 21 to 31 was paid

on 20-09-1994 for which the1st defendant made endorsement

under the receipt of the payment in passbook. When the plaintiff

went to the office of the 1st defendant for making payment of 32

installment, to her surprise, she found the business closed. Then

the plaintiff approached the 1st defendant who informed that

arrangements were made for payment of the amount due to the

subscribers, but however, no payment was made. Finally, the

plaintiff, having lost hope, filed the suit for recovery.

Defendants 1 and 3 remained ex parte. Defendants 2 and 4

to 7 filed the written statement stating that the suit is not

maintainable; that prior to 31-03-1993, they were partners of the

firm and later, they retired and they are not concerned with the

firm from 31-03-1993 onwards; that the defendants totally denied

the liability by saying that the plaintiff has not joined the chit nor

paid any installments and they never issued passbook nor any

receipts.

On behalf of the plaintiff, she got examined herself as PW1

and got marked Ex.A1 to A20 and also got examined and PW2 and

PW3. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant got examined

himself as DW1 and examined one P. Devadaanam as DW2. On

considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court

dismissed the suit by the decree and judgment dated 24-03-2000,

aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed the present appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff has

proved her claim i.e., payment of 31 installment towards the chit

as mentioned in the plaint so as to recover the suit amount?

As far as the averments that the plaintiff joined chit group

No. SML 8 with ticket No.18 maintained by the 1st defendant firm,

that she paid 31 installments amounting to Rs.1,24,000/- and

that all the defendants are jointly and severally liable, it is the

plaintiff, who has to prove the said facts by adducing oral as well

as documentary evidence. The plaintiff, apart from her oral

evidence, relied upon Exs.A1 to A20 to discharge the burden cast

on her. She stated in her cross-examination that one Devadanam,

clerk of the 1st defendant firm used to come to her house and

collect the subscriptions and issue receipts. However she denied

the suggestion that the 1st defendant or its partners did not issue

the passbook and receipts and that she invented the same for the

purpose of this claim. PW2 - husband of the plaintiff also says in

the cross-examination that the said Devadanam collected

subscription amount and issued receipts. PW3 stated that he paid

amount shown in Ex.A20 receipt on 20-09-1994 and the 2nd

defendant as foreman and clerk of the firm signed on the receipt.

But DWs1 and 2, in their evidence, denied that that the 1st

defendant received the amount shown under Exs.A1 to A20 and

the signatures on Ex.A20.

It is relevant to mention here itself that the plaintiff has not

filed the chit agreement nor taken any steps to produce the same

before the Court. Thus, the plaintiff failed to prove that she

subscribed to chit No. SML 8, ticket No.18 for Rs.2,00,000/- as

pleaded in the plaint since mere oral evidence of PW1 is not

sufficient to conclude that she joined the chit.

According to PW1, one Devadanam - clerk of the firm

received the amounts under Exs.A2 to A19 at her house which

clearly shows that neither the 2nd defendant nor any of the

partners personally received the amounts. To prove this, DWs1

and 2 were not even cross-examined on the aspect that the said

Devadanam worked as clerk in the firm and received amounts from

PW1. Hence, it cannot be said that the 1st defendant had received

the installment amounts towards the chit from PW1 making

themselves liable for repayment to the PW1. There is no positive

evidence to show that the said Devadanam collected the money

who in turn paid it to D1 or any of the other partners of the firm.

Nothing worthwhile was elicited from the cross examination DWs1

and 2. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the defendants

collected the subscriptions shown in Ex.A1 to A19 from PW1, so

also Ex.A20 through which PW3 was said to have paid money and

obtained signatures of DW1 and clerk of the firm is only a carbon

copy of the original receipt and it shows that there are signatures

of the remitter and collection clerk. The evidence of PW3 does not

show to whom he paid the amount of Rs.28,600/-. He simply

stated that he paid the amount to the 1st defendant which is a

firm. When Dw1 denied of having received the money, PW3 should

specifically state about the name of the clerk who collected the

amount under Ex.A20 from him on 20-09-1994 without which no

credence can be given to his evidence. Further a look at the receipt

Ex.A20 shows that there is only impression of the seal containing

the name V.Satynarayana without his signature. It is also relevant

at this juncture to see that PW1 had not even stated in her

evidence that under Ex.A20, she gave money to PW3 to pay it to

the 1st defendant and what all she stated in her evidence is that

one Devadanam came and collected the subscription which

contradicts the evidence of PW3 that he paid money under Ex.A20

on behalf of the plaintiff. The evidence of PW3 and Ex.A20 does not

prove the fact that an amount of Rs.28,600/- was paid on 20-09-

1994 and the same was received in the office of the 1st defendant

firm and that there is no positive evidence to prove the claim of the

plaintiff. The judgment of the trial Court therefore, does not require

any interference.

Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Though there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents,

the fairness with which the appellant's counsel submitted both

views is appreciable.

---------------------------------------

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 30th April 2021

ksld