(1.) DEFENDANTS in O.S.513/84 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kollam who are appellants in A.S.39/92 before District Court, Kollam are challenging the decree granted in favour of the respondent. Respondent instituted the suit for realisation of the amount due to him, paid by him towards chitty instalments being a subscriber of the chitty conducted by appellant. According to respondent, appellant was conducting the chitty by name "Lekshmi Chitty Fund" and her husband second defendant was the Manager and respondent was subscriber to five chitties and remitted 39 instalments. But by that time, appellant closed the chitty business and hence respondent is entitled to the amount paid by him. Appellant along with her husband filed a joint written statement admitting that appellant was conducting chitty No. 3/80. It was also contended that second defendant has nothing to do with the chitty and respondent is not entitled to a decree as against second respondent. It was further contended that respondent was a subscriber to the chitties at the rate of Rs. 1000/ - each and he bid the chitty for Rs. 4,300/ - on 9.9.81 and received the whole amount and the receipts produced by the respondent are fabricated and appellant shifted the residence from Kottakkakom to Ahemmadabad as her husband got employment there and during their absence their house was ransacked and the records were destroyed and therefore the records are not available with the appellant and appellant is not liable to pay any amount.
(2.) LEARNED Munsiff framed the necessary issues. On the evidence of PW1 and Dws 1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A4, B1 and B2 and X1 and X2, learned Munsiff upheld the case of respondent and rejected the case of appellant and granted a decree for realisation of Rs. 5,500/ - with future interest at 12% for the principal amount of Rs. 4,875/ -. Defendants challenged that decree and judgment before the District Court, Kollam in A.S.39/92. Learned District Judge on reappreciation of evidence found that second defendant has nothing to do with the chitty and even according to respondent, he was only the manager and respondent is only entitled to get a decree against the foreman. Hence first appellate court set aside the decree granted in favour of second defendant. Rejecting the contention of appellant, the decree granted as against appellant was confirmed. This appeal is filed challenging the said decree and judgment passed by the learned District Judge. The following substantial questions of law are framed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for appellant and respondent were heard.