SAMBHANA VARAHALU Vs. PUDI SARASWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 136/84 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tadepallegudem is the appellant.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for refund of advance amount and the allegations in the plaint are as follows:

(3.) THE defendant is a contractor doing contract business. He had entered into a contract to do contract work with the Regional Housing Board at Tadepallegudem. He is very well known to the husband of the plaintiff who was a Doctor at Tadepallegudem. The defendant was not having funds and so he approached the plaintiff to advance him monies as and when required to complete the contract works. Thus from about the middle of February 1982, the plaintiff began to advance the funds. The defendant got maintained a day book and ledger for the works done by him and also got entered in the said account through his clerk the amounts advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff advanced moneys till about the end of April 1982 as per the account maintained by the defendant. In fact, the plaintiff advanced some more amount but they are not entered in the accounts of the defendant and so the present the plaintiff is filing the suit only for the amount of Rs. 43,241. 20 ps, as shown in the accounts of the defendant. The plaintiff reserves her right to take separate proceedings at a later stage for the claim of rest of the amount. The day book and the ledge maintained by the defendant were delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff or her husband demanded the defendant to pay the money or endorse the cheque in favour of the plaintiff, he began to evade and dodge. The defendant is in fact encashing some of the cheques or the bills paid by the Housing Board and is actually walking away with the same without paying to the plaintiff. Recently when the plaintiff and he husband pressed and demanded the defendant for repayment of the above said amounts on 30. 4. 1983, the defendant passed an undertaking letter to the plaintiff saying that the entire contract bill amounts will have to be paid only to the plaintiff as she had invested the entire amount. He had also offered in the said letter that he would encash the bill and pay the same to the plaintiff under voucher. But he is not doing so. As the defendant failed to discharge the amount advanced by the plaintiff by way of loan to the defendant, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.