MATHEW Vs. KURUVILLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A police station is hardly the venue and the small hours after midnight hardly an auspicious time, for the resolution of what is essentially a civil dispute. A transaction entered into at such a place and at such a time, is likely to be viewed as susceptible to vitiating influences. That was what had happened in Kottayam town; and in the year 1970,

(2.) THOSE who feel vanquished by unjust official might are not always likely to give expression to their moral indignation by resort to the process of law. Quite often, people suffer in silence, such indignities and such losses. The plaintiff in the case, however, with commendable courage, sought to resort to a court of law for the vindication of his just claims. The courts below have granted him relief. Whether the judgments and decrees of the courts below are vitiated, so vitiated on any substantial question of law as to invite interference in the attenuated jurisdiction of a second appeal, is the matter arising for consideration in this case.

(3.) THE business connections between the plaintiff and the defendant are admitted by the defendant. However, according to the defendant, the distribution of the film was done from August, 1969 with the approval of the Film Financial Corporation. THE proceeds from the distribution of the film had not been properly accounted for by Dinny Films. THEy diverted the prints. According to the defendant, the plaintiff misappropriated the collection, taking advantage of the difference of opinion between the defendant and the other partners of Rooparekha. It was for the above reason that he filed the criminal complaint. When the prints of the film were seized from the office of the Dinny Films, the plaintiff contacted the defendant to settle the matter amicably. THE defendant would have it that the parties approached the police for effecting such a settlement. THE plaintiff bad discussed with his lawyer; the draft. of the agreement and promissory note were prepared after due deliberation; the originals were executed on 12-6-1970 at the office of the Dinny films and the payment of the money was also made there. It was contended that the documents were executed, and the money was paid, voluntarily and out of free consent of the plaintiff.