GOPALA PILLAI Vs. SAYYED MUHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, on behalf of the appellant, the learned Advocate General attacks the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Quilon dismissing the plaintiff's suit O. S. No. 168/1957.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit in question for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4949-1-3 from the defendant stated to be due as balance outstanding from the defendant in respect of pattuvaravu transactions that he had with the plaintiff, including interest that had accrued due on the original amount that was found due as on 31-12-1955. According to the plaintiff the defendant had pattuvaravu dealings both in cash and rice from the plaintiff's shop and that as per the plaintiff's accounts a sum of Rs. 4888-12-0 was due from the defendant as on 31-12-1955. In spite of demand it is the case of the plaintiff that the amount has not been paid and therefore the suit was instituted for recovery of the said amount from the defendant.

(3.) The defendant admitted that he had pattuvaravu dealings with the plaintiff in money and rice from 1953 till the end of April 1955. But the defendant pleaded that he had those transactions with the plaintiff because he had taken some contract work in the Chavara Minerals which contract work came to a close by the end of April 1955 and therefore after 1st May 1955 he had no dealings with the plaintiff either in cash or by way of taking rice on credit. But the defendant also pleaded that in respect of the amount due to the plaintiff at the end of April 1955 a sum of Rs. 670 was found due. But the defendant set up a further plea that the plaintiff's son inlaw, one Balakrishna Pillai, the defendant's nephew one Abdul Rashid, and a gentleman from Coimbatore by name Ali Khan were conducting as partners a business at Quilon in the name of "The Happy World Amusement Park", which ended in loss and inasmuch as the plaintiff appears to have suffered loss the attempt of the plaintiff is to recover the same from the defendant by making false entries in the books of account. Therefore the defendant pleaded that excepting a sum of Rs. 670 that he owed to the plaintiff in respect of pattuvaravu transactions that he had with him, the rest of the claim is absolutely false and unfounded.