VIDYARTHA DAYINI SABHA Vs. JOSHY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defeated plaintiff in O.S. No. 611/1992 on the file of the Sub Court, North Paravur is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount on the basis of a chitty transaction entered into between the plaintiff chitty company, having its registered office at Bangalore and branches in other places including one at Methala within the jurisdiction of Sub Court, North Paravur are the defendants.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the first defendant was a subscriber to the chitty having sala of Rs. 72,000.00 and the chitty was started from its Bangalore branch from 27.04.1988 and they joined the chitty with No. 166 and the first defendant bid the chitty on the 10th instalment on 02.03.1989 and received the amount and executed Ext. A1 agreement jointly on 27.05.1989, whereby the amount payable as on that day was fixed as Rs. 20,100.00 and this has to be paid in 67 instalments at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month starting from 02.07.1989 onwards. It is also agreed that in default, they have to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The defendants 2 and 3 are the guarantors and they also joined the agreement, undertaking to pay the amount. The first defendant thereafter paid up to 19th instalment and from 20th instalment onwards it has become due. So an amount of Rs. 18,300.00 was due from 02.01.1990, which the defendants are liable to pay with 12% interest. Though notice was issued on 23.05.1992, they did not pay the amount. So the plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of Rs. 18,300.00, interest of Rs. 6,405.00 and notice charges of Rs. 100.00, totalling an amount of Rs. 24,805.00 together with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(3.) Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement admitting the transaction. According to them, the interest of Rs. 6,405.00 calculated is not correct. The first defendant had paid Rs. 1,500.00 which has not been given credit and so the amount claimed is not correct. So they prayed for disposal of the case, accepting their contention. Thereafter first defendant filed additional written statement stating that, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case for a chitty that has been taken from Bangalore on 27.04.1998 and prayed for dismissal of the suit.