MAHALINGAM ASARI Vs. LAKSHMANA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in both these revision petitions is a goldsmith of Thirukkarangudi village in Tirunelveli District. They raise for resolution an interesting conflict of decision between the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in S.C.S. No. 92 of 1946, and the Village Panchayat Court of Kalakkad in a suit before them. On what appears precisely the same evidence they came to different findings of fact in the following curious circumstances.

(2.) Lakshmana Reddiar, the respondent, it is common ground, gave this goldsmith a lump of gold weighing 15.9/4 kalanjis on 12 June, 1945, to make a pair of bangles for his daughter. This is also evidenced by a receipt admittedly signed by the goldsmith and produced from Lakshmana Reddiar's custody. Lakshmana Reddiar's case set out in a notice Ex. P-2, dated 20 June, 1946, was a demand on the goldsmith to make and deliver the bangles or to return the gold. This was countered by a reply, Ex. D-I, dated 28 June, 1946, by the goldsmith to the effect that he had made the bangles and delivered them to Lakshmana Reddiar on 4th August 1945, and he claimed Rs. 52-8-0 for making charges and some gold which he supplied. Lakshmana Reddiar filed a Small Cause suit in the Sub-Court on 20 July, 1946, to recover Rs. 585 as value of the gold he had given to the goldsmith. The goldsmith filed a suit in the Thirukkarangudi Panchayat Court for Rs. 50 as making charges of the bangles alleging that he had in fact delivered them to Lakshmana Reddiar. On the application of Lakshmana Reddiar the District Munsiff of Ambasamudram transferred the suit to the Panchayat Court of Kalakkad village about six miles away.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge decreed Lakshmana Reddiar's suit in full on 7 October, 1946, finding that though gold had been handed over to the goldsmith according to the chit, Ex. P-I signed by him and produced from the possession of Lakshmana Reddiar, the goldsmith had delivered no bangles at all, his defence being rejected in toto. Lakshmana Reddiar was the only witness examined, while the defendant examined himself and three other witnesses. One was Piraviperumal Pillai, D.W. 2, who was no other than the President of the Thirukkarangudi Panchayat Court, who actually swore that he personally saw the goldsmith hand over the bangles to Lakshmana Reddiar. He further said that in the Panchayat Court itself on 18 July, 1946, when Lakshmana Reddiar appeared before them and asked for further time he told him that he had himself seen the goldsmith hand over the jewels to him. The next witness, one Muhammad Ali D.W. 3, said he was in the Panchayat Court when this case was called up when Lakshmana Reddiar said he would go home and bring the bangles. One Sudalaikuluva Naicker (D.W. 4) also swore that he actually saw the goldsmith giving the bangles to Lakshmana Reddiar. Rejecting this evidence and acting mainly on the receipt for the lump of gold, Ex. P-I, which the goldsmith has not taken back from Lakshmana Reddiar, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit on the basis of the plaint claim that the lump of gold was of sovereign quality.