The legal principle of presumption when a party does not offer to be cross-examined was crucial in assessing the defendants' allegations.

JUDGMENT :

The appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.93 of 1997 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru, West Godavari District. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

The 1st defendant joined as a subscriber in the plaintiff chit fund firm in 3 chits worth of Rs.50,000/- each payable in 25 instalments at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month with Ticket No.6 in Group D.1 and Ticket Nos.3 and 4 in Group D.2. The 1st defendant became the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 31-12-1995 with respect to one chit out of the above 3 chits before withdrawing the chit amount. The 1st defendant requested the plaintiff to arrange a loan keeping the other two chits as a security and promising to repay the same in regular instalments. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.97,500/- on 06-01-1996 to the 1st defendant with respect to the above 3 chits. The 2nd defendant, who is none other than the wife of 1st defendant, stood as a guarantor and both the defendants executed a demand promissory note and when the plaintiff insisted the defendants to furnish security for the aforesaid amount, the 2nd defendant deposited (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest as claimed by it ? and (5) To what relief ?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff chit fund firm, its Managing Partner is examined as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant is examined as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-23.

7. After completion of trial and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in part with proportionate costs for Rs.1,11,000/- only granting subsequent interest over the same at 12% per annum from 01-10-1997 till the date when the redemption period is over and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization and a preliminary decree was passed against the plaint schedule property, granting time for redemption as 3 months and dismissed the claim for remaining amount without costs.

8. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed the present appeal questioning the finding given by the trial Court.

9. Heard Sri Aravala Sreenivasa Rao, on behalf of counsel for the appellants/defendants. None appeared for the respondent/plaintiff.

10. Now, the points for determination are:

(1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? and

(2) To what extent ?

11. Point No.1: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ?

The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant joined as a subscriber of the plaintiff chit fund firm in 3 chits worth of Rs.50,000/- each payable in 25 instalments at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month with Ticket No.6 in Group D.1 and Ticket Nos.3 and 4 in Group D.2 and the 1st defendant became the highest bidder in the auction conducted with respect to one chit out of the above 3 chits on 31-12-1995 and the 1st defendant requested the plaintiff to arrange a loan keeping the other two chits as a security and promising to repay the same in regular instalments. The plaintiff further pleaded that in pursuance of the request made by the 1st defendant, the plaintiff advanced an amount of Rs.97,500/- on 06-01-1996 to the 1st defendant.

12. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined its Managing Partner as P.W.1. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the 1st defendant joined as a subscriber in 3 chits and so also executed chit agreements for the respective chit transactions under Exs.A-1 to A-3, Ex.A-1 is dated 27-9-1995 and Exs.A-2 and A-3 are dated 18-10-1995. P.W.1 further deposed in his evidence that a promissory note was jointly executed by both the defendants, who are none other than the husband and wife under Ex.A-4 on 06-01-1996 and guarantee letter was also executed by the defendants under