VELAYUDHA KURUP NARAYANA KURUP Vs. C K GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second appeal by the defendant.

(2.) Plaintiff was the Secretary of the S.N.D.P. Sakhayogam, Kadavoor, and Dw. 4 its President at the relevant time. Suspecting misappropriation of certain sums collected for the Sakhayogam, Dw. 4 preferred a complaint before the Police and the plaintiff was arrested on October 27, 1950. According to the plaintiff, at the intervention of the defendant and certain others, and to get released from arrest, he undertook to pay whatever was found due to the Sakhayogam on a scrutiny of its accounts and as security therefor he entrusted Rs. 500/- to the defendant directing him to pay the same or part thereof to Dw. 4 if he became convinced from the accounts that such amount was really due from the plaintiff. On October 30, 1950, the Police referred the complaint to the Magistrate as not seen to be true; and on April 30, 1951, the Magistrate dropped the case, after notice to Dw. 4, as not fit to be proceeded with.

(3.) On December 30, 1950, the plaintiff issued a notice, Ext. D3, to the defendant demanding return of the amount entrusted. Admittedly the defendant neither replied to nor complied with that demand. On the other hand, he gave the amount to Dw. 4 on January 23, 1951, and got the receipt, Ext. II. In the present suit the plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant the amount entrusted by him. The defendant pleaded to have paid the amount to Dw. 4 in the presence of the plaintiff on January 23,1951. Though the defendant in his written statement averred in unambiguous terms that the money entrusted to him by the plaintiff had nothing to do with the criminal case, but was intended only to clear off the plaintiffs liability to the Sakhayogam, he appears to have contended at the trial that it was given with the object of stifling a criminal prosecution and therefore could not be claimed back in a Court of law. The Courts below concurred to find the plea of payment to Dw. 4 in the presence of the plaintiff untrue, the receipt, Ext. II, unacceptable and the entrustment to defendant unaffected by illegality and therefore to decree the suit. Hence this second appeal.