MANIKONDA VENKATA NARASIMHAM Vs. VIJAYAWADA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two First Appeals are directed against the Judgment and decree of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Vijayawada, dismissing the two suits, O.S. Nos. 22 of 1949 and 107 of 1950, for the recovery of Rs.11,23O (in O.S. No. 22 of 1949) being the amount of principal and interest at 6 per cent per anum from 1st January, 1947 and for Rs. 5,464 (in O.S. No. 107 of 1950) being the principal amount with interest at 3% per annum. Both these suits relate to the recovery of subscriptions paid to the Bezwada Hospital Association, registered under Act XXI of 1860, of which defendants 1 to 21 constitute the General Body, due to the non-fulfilment of the objects of that Association, namely, the building of a hospital at Bezwada. In so far as O.S. No. 107 of 1950 is concerned, the defendants are Rao Saheb D. Govindarajulu and Mudda Narayana Sarma who are defendants 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 22 of 1949.

(2.) In O.S. No. 22 of 1949 the plaintiff alleged that defendants 1 to 5, who are the Bezwada Hospital Association represented by its President Mrs. S. Kapoor, and its office-bearers, C. Narasimham Chowdari, D. Govindarajulu, Vice-Presidents, M. Narayana Sarma, Secretary and K.Nagabhushanarao, Joint Secretary, constitute the managing sub-committee of the said Association, the main Object of which was to establish and maintain a Hospital at Bezwada with public funds and donations. It is alleged that the managing sub-committee approached the plaintiff and represented that they wanted to construct and maintain an up-to-date and fully-equipped hospital at Bezwada and that they would manage to get a grant from the Government for at least half the amount required but as the plaintiff and other donors insisted that unless the construction was commenced before the end of 1946, they would not contribute and further insisted that their donations should be returned back if the construction was not commenced before that date. To this condition the managing committee agreed, whereupon the plaintiff consented to pay Rs. 20,000 and immediately issued a cheque for Rs. 10,000 in the name of the 3rd defendant and promised to pay the balance within three months thereafter. A receipt was issued for this amount on 19th January, 1946, embodying the condition that the amount donated by the plaintiff would be returned to him in case the construction of the building was not commenced before the end of 1946. This condition according to the plaintiff, is a condition precedent binding on all the defendants and that time was thus the essence of the contract. It is further stated that inasmuch as the Association was unable to raise the necessary funds and the Government did not grant any sum, the whole scheme was abandoned and consequently the plaintiff is entitled to the sum of Rs. 10,000 which he paid to the Association. As the amount has not been returned inspite of several demands, the plaintiff claimed the amount of Rs.10,000 together with interest by way of damages at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from 1st January, 1947.

(3.) The 1st defendant in this suit while not denying the object of the formation of the Bezwada Hospital Association, admitted having collected from several rich and generous persons a sum of Rs. 70,000. She stated that immediately thereafter her husband was transferred and inspite of the enthusiasm of the local people the project could not be pushed through, that the amount was deposited in the Imperial Bank of India and after waiting for sometime to see whether the project would reach its fruition or not, she personally considered it fair that if others were also agreeable the amount could be returned to the donors who had generously made their contributions and accordingly she issued cheques to all the donors which were received by them, but they themselves resolved that they did not want their money back and would still like to pursue the project. It is, therefore, stated that the fault was not that of the office-bearers, that the defendant is ever ready to comply with the decision of the Court and that in so far as her personal opinion is concerned, since the project of building a big hospital could not be fulfilled in a place where they tried to serve the people to the best of their ability, something for public good should be done even with the amount now available, that the claim for interest by way of damages is neither fair nor legal, as nobody had the use of the amount and nobody wrongfully retained it and that she is not liable for any costs.