DANDAPANI SAHU Vs. SATYABADI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THE Second Appeal has been preferred challenging to the judgment passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Berhampur in M.A. No.2 of 1999 (M.A. No.2 of 1993 GDC).

(3.) BOTH parties adduced their respective evidence in the suit i.e. Money Suit No.10 of 1991 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chhatrapur. On assessment of evidence on record, trial Court recorded the finding that when Defendant No.1 has not proved that he did not execute Ext.1, therefore, he is liable to make payment of the unpaid price of the goods amounting to Rs. 6457/ - along with interest @ 6% with effect from 8.10.1990 till the date of relisation. Learned Second Addl.District Judge on the other hand recorded that when the transaction and execution of Ext.1 has not been admitted by the defendant, therefore, burden of prove was on the plaintiff to prove that defendant had entered into the alleged transaction and he executed Ext.1 undertaking to repay the balance/unpaid price of cashew nuts. On assessment of both oral and documentary evidence, learned Additional District Judge found that plaintiff has failed to discharge that burden either by examining the scribe of Ext.1 and/or Babu Gouda, the discharged employee of the defendant inasmuch as according to the plaintiff that Babu Gouda had dealt with the transaction on behalf of the defendant. Learned Additional District Judge also found from the case as projected by the plaintiff that keeping in view the rate per bag and the amount said to have been paid, the unpaid amount should have been much more than Rs. 6457/ - and plaintiff had not led evidence explaining that circumstance. Learned Addl.District Judge therefore allowed the appeal and accordingly set aside the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. When the findings of the Courts below stand at that, after going through the relevant portions from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence of the parties, this Court does not find any admission on the part of the defendant relating to entering into the suit transaction with the plaintiff so as to bound himself for payment of the claimed amount.