LAWS(APH)-2004-3-76

RAVI RAGHU RAMAIAH Vs. KONERU RAMA TULASAMMA

Decided On March 10, 2004
RAVI RAGHU RAMAIAH Appellant
V/S
KONERU RAMA TULASAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ravi Raghuramaiah, the unsuccessful defendant being aggrieved by the reversing Judgment and decree made in A.S. No.8/2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, setting aside the Judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 336/99 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, had preferred the present Second Appeal.

(2.) Shri D.V. Sitaram Murthy, Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) Per contra Sri V. Ravinder Rao, Counsel representing the respondent/ landlady had pointed out to the refusal endorsement and also had taken this Court through Section 14 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and had explained that at any stretch of imagination the said provision cannot be held to be mandatory and inasmuch as refusal had been recorded, the evidence of P.W. 2 is clear and categorical. The Counsel also would maintain that when a presumption is available, though a rebuttable presumption, the mere fact that the postman was further examined cannot dilute the rigor of availability of the presumption in favour of the landlady. The Counsel no doubt had stated that after determination, towards damages without prejudice to her contentions, the landlady had encashed the demand drafts and definetly it would not amount to waiver. The Counsel had explained relating to realization of the amount after filing of the suit. At any rate, the Counsel would contend that this defence is taken only with a view to prolong the litigation. Reliance also was placed on Saladi Srirama Murthy v. K. Swaminaidu4, Ram Shree v. Khadija BibP, State of Madras v. K.N. Shanmugha Mudaliar3, Ram Autar v. Savitri Devi7 and P. Lakshmanchandji v. V.V.S.R. Murthy1.