RANGASWAMY S Vs. A P TRANSCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Add 1. Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, in O.S.No.14/1980 on 24-9-1992.

(2.) The facts that arise for consideration can be briefly stated as follows: Defendants 2 to 5 are the appellants herein and they are the sons of 1st defendant. 1st Respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,04,386-04 ps. against the defendants alleging that there was a due for an amount of Rs. 1,04,386-04 ps. from the defendants towards arrears from 1/77 to 12/79 which includes additional charges (surcharges) for the delay in payment after adjustment of consumption deposit etc. It is further alleged that the first defendant as Manager of Hindu Joint family executed an agreement for and on behalf of Sri Sivaramakrishna Oil Mills on 20-2-1976 for a contract of 80 KV for the supply of electrical energy and the supply was released on 26-5-1976. It is further alleged that the service connection was disconnected due to non-payment of consumption charges for 9/76 on 7-11-1976. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the first defendant is the father of defendants 2 to 5 and they constitute members of a Joint Hindu family doing family business of Sri Sivaramakrishna Oil Mills and an agreement was executed on 20-2-1976 in proprietary capacity and they were liable to pay the amount due as per the agreement. The defendants 2 to 5 are bound to discharge the debt due by their father first defendant under theory of pious obligation. It is further alleged that they have filed O.S.No.112/76 and obtained a collusive decree. It is further alleged that the agreement is for a minimum period of five years from the date of supply. The said agreement could be determined by the defendants by giving in writing one year's notice expressing such intention at any time after a period of four years. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the minimum charges as per the agreement. The first defendant having admitted that defendants 2 to 5 are his sons and they constitute members of Joint Hindu family contends that the agreement was not executed by him as a Manager of Joint Hindu family and it was executed in his individual capacity as the Proprietor of Sri Sivaramakrishna Oil Mills. He has also contended that there was a disruption of joint family status which led to filing O.S.112/76. It is further contended that the terms of the agreement entered into by the 1st defendant with the plaintiff are one sided, onerous and the consent of the 1st defendant has been obtained on account of the dominant position of the plaintiff as the sole supplier of electricity. The defendant has informed the plaintiff by way of notice dated 12-5-77 the fact of stopping of electrical energy from 7-11-1976 by addressing the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Ananthapur and also requested to cancel the service connection to the factory and refund the security deposit of Rs. 9,200/- and return the loan contribution of Rs. 6,300.00 to him. It is further contended that he has also requested the department to remove all the meters, equipment and cubical fixtures fixed for the supply of electricity to the factory. The unilateral adjustment of the amount is disputed. It is also contended that demanding the defendants to pay the minimum charges for his inability to run the industry in spite of his informing the department immediately that he is not in need of current is illegal, inequitable and unenforceable and opposed to the principles laid down under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further alleged that the agreement was obtained by the plaintiff by undue influence and that the clauses 32.2.1 or terms and conditions of supply under B.P.Ms.No. 690/- dated 17-5-1975 are illegal. It is further alleged that the agreement dated 20-2-1976 is not complete and valid because it lacks of formal proposal and accepted by the Electricity Department. In addition to the contentions of 1st defendant, defendants 2 to 5 have contended that the agreement was executed by the 1st defendant in his individual capacity as Proprietor of Sri Sivaramakrishna Oil Mills and not in the capacity of Manager of a joint Hindu family. They have denied about the continuation of a Hindu joint family status and sought for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) After trial, the lower Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the matter has been carried in A.S.No.889 of 1982 before this Court. While setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower Court in O.S.14/80 my learned brother Justice Ranga Reddy disposed of the matter with the following direction: