MOORAMPUDI VENKAYYA Vs. ACHANTA SREE RAMA KRISHNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment of District Judge of Eluru dismissing their suit. They brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,942-11-4 made up of Rs. 1,600 deposited with the defendants in 1948, Rs. 406-4-0 being the value of 20 bags of paddy which the defendants took possession of for and on behalf of the plaintiffs and Rs. 1,936-7-4 representing the price of 13 candies of paddy stored in the godowns of the 2nd defendant in March, 1948. The averments in the plaint inter alia were that the 2nd and 4th plaintiffs left their village, Duddepudi, for Sivapuram in West Godavary District in two bullock carts loaded with 20 bags of paddy, owing to the insecure conditions that prevailed in Khammam district of the then Hyderabad State. On the way, they were waylaid by some persons and bandies with the bags of paddy were taken away by them. The victims i.e., the 2nd and 4th plaintiffs made a report to the police at Chintalapudi. Meanwhile, the defendants intervened and promised to settle the affairs amicably between the parties. For that end, they required a mutchilika to be executed in their favour. Accordingly, an agreement was executed by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in favour of defendants 1 to 3 to abide by the decision to be given by them and also to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,600 to enforce obedience to it. Sometime later both the parties made the necessary deposits. One of the terms of the reference was that the decision should be rendered within a month of the reference. When the plaintiffs found that the defendants were not earnest in deciding the disputes between the parties, they revoked the reference and demanded the return of their deposits. The defendants put off payment by giving evasive replies and Were also contemplating to bring into existence an ante-dated award. THIS led the plaintiffs to issue a notice to them warning them against concocting an award purporting to have been made earlier. The plaintiffs got back only one cart and two pairs of bullocks and a sum of Rs. 350 by way of compensation for the loss of the other cart but not the 20 bags of paddy or the value thereof which was in the custody of the three defendants, having been collected by them from the culprits. It was also alleged that the 1st plaintiff stored 13 candies of paddy in the godown of the 2nd defendant and the 1st plaintiff was prevented from removing this by the 2nd defendant as per the conspiracy entered into amongst them.

(2.) THE defendants who filed separate written statements denied the claim of the plaintiffs under all the heads. It was stated in the written statements that there was no revocation of the reference to arbitration, that the award was pronounced by them on 8th November, 1948, the day on which it purports to have been made in the presence of all the parties, that the plaintiffs deposited only Rs. 1,491 and for the balance of Rs.109 the 3rd plaintiff gave a letter to the 2nd defendant with a request that he should make it up, that there was no money of the plaintiffs with the defendants and the balance of the depossit was made over to the opposite party in full quittance of the claim they had against the plaintiffs, that no paddy was collected by them from any one to be delivered to the plaintiff. THE 2nd defendant stated that he did not prevent the 1st plaintiff from taking away his paddy which in fact was removed by him. With regard to the third item, the 1st and 3rd defendants denied all knowledge about it.

(3.) IN regard to the first item, two points were urged by Mr. Sankara Sastry : (1) that the award, Exhibit B-7 did not come into existence till after 30th November, 1948, the day on which he issued a registered notice ; and (2) that the defendants were not authorised to pay the sum of Rs. 1,600 to the opposite party.