NEELU NAGAMMA Vs. USHARAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 369 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara. The suit was originally filed by one Parameswaran Pillai for return of gold ornaments pledged by him with the defendants. During the course of trial, he died and his wife and children have been brought on party array as his legal representatives. After trial, the suit has been decreed only against the first defendant. Therefore, this appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of the suit against the second and third defendants, who are the respondents in this appeal. As per order in CMP No. 6215 of 1999, the first defendant, who was not a party to the appeal, has got himself impleaded as the additional third respondent, but at the time of final hearing of the appeal, there is no representation on his behalf.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the other respondents.

(3.) ACCORDING to the appellants/plaintiffs, on 28. 3. 1990, a gold chain weighing 23 grams was pledged by late Parameswaran Pillai with the defendants and an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was borrowed. Subsequently, on 4. 8. 1990, another gold chain weighing 15. 5 grams was pledged for an amount of Rs. 2,500/ -. Later, on 6. 3. 1991, two bangles and one gold ring, weighing 16 grams were pledged and an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was borrowed. The defendants are alleged to have been conducting money lending business in the name and style "v. R. Finance", Kunnathukal and "u. R. Finance", Udiyankulangara. Thus, the original plaintiff, late Parameswaran Pillai had obtained a total loan of Rs. 8,500/- on the security of 54. 5 grams of gold ornaments. On 5. 5. 1991, though he had gone to the financial institution for paying off the loan and for redeeming the gold ornaments, the concern was seen locked. Therefore, he went to the house of the defendants, "ushas", on 20. 5. 1991. But the defendants were not seen in the house. Thereafter he approached the defendants several times and requested them to receive the loan amount and to return his gold ornaments. But, they did not do so. Later, he issued a notice through his advocate on 24. 8. 1992 and 18. 9. 1992 demanding return of the pledged gold ornaments. The first defendant did not accept the notice. The second defendant, who is the wife of the first defendant, caused the issue of a reply disowning her liability. The third defendant sent a reply stating that he was only an employee of the institution and he was therefore not liable for return of the ornaments. The suit was filed in the above circumstances. According to the plaintiffs, they were not liable to pay interest from 5. 5. 1991. They prayed for return of the gold ornaments or for recovery of the value of the gold ornaments excluding the loan amount and the interest payable to the defendants with future interest and costs.