KUNJAMNIA Vs. GOVINDA KURUKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. THE suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 508-9-6 being the balance due under Ext. A pro-note executed by the defendant in the plaintiff's favour and Rs. 383/13/9 the balance due as per accounts. THE pro-note was executed on 9-2-1123 for Rs. 1550/ -. Towards the pro-note an amount of Rs. 200/- was paid on 29-12-1124 , rs. 120/- on 4-3-1125 and rs. 1000/- on 25-5-1125 and these payments have been endorsed on the promissory note by the defendant. Towards the amount due as per accounts Rs. 100/- was paid on 13-11-1125 , Rs. 25/- on 25-2-1126 and Rs. 50/- on 4-11-1126. THEse amounts were given credit to in the plaintiff's accounts and Rs. 383-13-9 represented the balance due. THE defendant admitted the execution of the pro-note, but denied that he had any other dealings with the plaintiff. According to him the three payments of Rs. 100/-, Rs. 25/- and Rs. 50/- alleged to have been credited in the accounts were also paid in discharge of the pro-note, but the necessary endorsements were not made in the pro-note as the pro-note was not available with the plaintiff when those amounts were paid and he agreed to have it credited later when the transaction was closed. Besides these amounts according to the defendant another sum of Rs. 200/- was also paid towards the pro-note by his brother-in-law Chinnappa Menon on his behalf as per Ext. IV cheque issued by Chinnappa Menon on the Cochin Nayar Bank. According to the plaintiff Ext. IV cheque which was payable to "self" was handed over to him by chinnappa Menon because the latter wanted some money urgently and 29-1-1950 happened to be a Sunday. As the plaintiff had no money with him he took the amount from Pw. 2 and paid the same to Chinnappa Menon and two or three days later when the cheque was cashed the amount was returned to Pw. 2. As such the cheque had nothing to do with the dealings between him and the defendant.

(2.) THE plaintiff produced his accounts for 1123 to 1126 both journal and ledger in support of the case that the defendant had pattuvaravu dealings with him and that the sum of Rs. 383/13/9 was the balance due from the defendant on that account. He also examined three witnesses besides himself to prove that the defendant had dealings with him during the relevant period. To substantiate his case regarding Ext. IV cheque for Rs. 200/- given by Chinnappa Menon, the plaintiff has examined Pw. 2 who gave evidence that he advanced the amount to be paid to Chinnappa Menon and that the amount was returned to him by the plaintiff two or three days hence. Chinnappa menon was also cited as a witness in the plaintiffs's list, but as he was not available an affidavit was obtained from the witness to prove the circumstances under which he came to give the cheque to the plaintiff. However this part of the plaintiff's case was not accepted by the trial court. THE plaintiff's accounts as well as the oral evidence adduced by him to support his case that the defendant had pattuvaravu dealings with him were accepted by the trial court and a decree was given for the amount claimed in the plaint less the sum of Rs. 200/- covered by Ext. IV. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff's accounts were not acceptable as they were not properly maintained and the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff was artificial and interested. He therefore dismissed the suit except to the extent of Rs. 49/12 admitted by the defendant to be due under the pro-note. THE plaintiff has now come up in appeal against the decree to the extent that it went against him.

(3.) IN the result the decree of the Subordinate Judge is reversed and the decree passed by the learned Munsiff is restored. Parties will pay and receive proportionate costs in all the three courts. Allowed.