NARAYANASWAMY K V Vs. C R VENKITACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. Suit was one for recovery of money. Both courts nonsuited the plaintiff on merits and also on the question of limitation that the suit claim is barred. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.

(2.) THE gist of the plaintiff's case for recovery of the suit claim against the defendant can be summed up thus. Both the plaintiff and defendant, employed under a common employer, namely Postal Department, were proceeded against for alleged misappropriation of funds. Pending such proceedings plaintiff deposited the amount, which was stated to have been misappropriated. Though the plaintiff had not been fully absolved of the blame in the departmental inquiry conducted, alleging that the defendant was culpable for the misappropriation and he alone was liable to the department, the suit was laid for recovery of the amount which had been deposited by the plaintiff from the defendant. Admittedly, the deposits were made by way of several payments during the period of 1998 - 1999. Suit was instituted much after the completion of the departmental proceedings and retirement of the plaintiff on superannuation, in 2005. Suit claim was resisted by the defendant contending that there was no privity of contract between the parties in respect of the amount deposited by the plaintiff and further that he was not liable for the amount alleged to have been misappropriated. He also resisted the suit contending it was barred by limitation. On the materials placed, as already indicated, on merits as well as also on the question of limitation, both the courts found that the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree canvassed for and he was nonsuited.