GIRILAL CHALIAPARAMBIL KUTTAPPAN Vs. MADHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is first defendant in O.S.5/2002 on the file of Munsiff court, Chalakudy. First respondent is the plaintiff. Suit was filed for realisation of Rs.40,000/-, which according to first respondent was received by appellant on her behalf, when suit for realisation of advance amount paid by her, was settled and was paid by defendant in that suit and was not paid by appellant in spite of repeated demands. Case of first respondent was that she was a made-servant of appellant and in that capacity she authorised appellant to prosecute the suit for return of the advance paid under an agreement for sale and when the suit was settled, amount due to her was received by appellant on her behalf and was not paid to her in spite of demand. A decree for realisation of the amount was sought. Appellant filed a written statement contending that he did not receive any amount on behalf of first respondent and he was not aware of the suit or the settlement and he was on inimical terms with Circle Inspector of Police and O.S.1473/99 was filed before Munsiff court, Irinjalakuda by appellant against Circle Inspector who threatened appellant and suit was filed due to the enmity and he is not liable to pay any amount to first respondent. Learned Munsiff framed necessary issues. Apart from first respondent as PW1, she examined PW2, the counsel who filed O.S.59/98 before Munsiff court, Aluva for realisation of amount due from PW4 Krishnankutty, PW3 the Circle Inspector and PW4. Ext.A1 series were marked on her side. Appellant was examined as DW1. Exts.B1 to B4 were also marked. Learned Munsiff on the evidence found that evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 4 establish that O.S.59/98 was filed by first respondent against PW4, for return of the advance amount paid pursuant to agreement for sale and it was settled fixing Rs.40,000/- as the amount due to PW1 and it was paid by PW4 to PW2, to be paid to first respondent, as the case was being prosecuted on behalf of first respondent by appellant and Rs.40,000/- was received by appellant for first respondent. Trial court granted a decree as sought for. Appellant challenged the decree and judgment before Additional Sub court, Irinjalakuda. Learned Sub Judge, on re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the decree and judgment and dismissed the appeal which was challenged in this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for appellant was heard.

(3.) Argument of learned counsel appearing for appellant is that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that appellant received any amount on behalf of first respondent and courts erred in accepting the evidence of Pws.2 and 4. It was argued that appellate court should not have accepted Exts.A2 and A3 the compromise petition and the compromise decree in O.S.59/98, behind back of the appellant at the appellate stage and should not have relied on those evidence. It was vehemently argued after elaborately taking through the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 4 that courts below should not have accepted their evidence. Learned counsel also argued that as per evidence of PW2, the amount was paid through Advocate Sukumaran, who was not examined and such a case was not even pleaded in the plaint and when examined, first respondent deposed that she has no knowledge about all these things and in such circumstances, courts should not have accepted the evidence.