Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2534
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
M.Rajangam – Appellant
Versus
B.Gopalakrishnamoorthy – Respondent
C.R.P(NPD)No.337 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided on : 02-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.T.Bharath Gowtham for Mr.T.Veenasuresh
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Rajagopal, Adv.
Headnote:
Money Lending - Discharge of Debt - Evidence Act, Section 101 - Civil Procedure Code, Section 115 - [Money Lending] - [Evidence Act, Section 101, Civil Procedure Code, Section 115] - The court discussed the duty of the plaintiff to produce statement of accounts, ledger, etc., to prove the suit claim and the importance of maintaining books of accounts in a money lending business. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish that the amount was not discharged and that it is necessary to submit the account to prove whether the amount was discharged or not. The court set aside the findings of the Lower Appellate Court that it is not necessary to produce the ledger account by the plaintiff and upheld the judgment of the trial Court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit based on a promissory note, claiming that the defendant owed a sum of money. The defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and stated that he had repaid the amount, presenting a receipt book as evidence. The trial Court found in favor of the defendant, but the Lower Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had the duty to produce statement of accounts and ledger to prove the suit claim. It emphasized the importance of maintaining books of accounts in a money lending business and upheld the judgment of the trial Court.
Issues: The main issues were whether the findings of the Appellate Court regarding the production of ledger accounts by the plaintiff were just and fair, and whether the defendant had discharged his burden under the promissory note and the receipt book.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish that the amount was not discharged, and it is necessary to submit the account to prove whether the amount was discharged or not.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court and upholding the judgment of the trial Court. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
The petitioner herein originally filed a Second Appeal in SA.SR.No.17631 of 2002 aggrieved by the Judgment in A.S.No.17 of 1998 dated 19.10.2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vellore.
2. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed CMP.No.1531 of 2010 in SA.SR.No.17631 of 2002 to convert the SA.SR.No.17631 of 2002 into Civil Revision Petition. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2010. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner herein is the first defendant in O.S.No.105 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vellore. The plaintiff in the said suit is the first respondent in this revision. The second defendant in the suit is the second respondent in this revision. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per the ranking in the suit.
4. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on the basis of Ex.A1 suit promissory note dated 01.02.1993. According to the Plaintiff/first respondent herein, the first defendant/revision petitioner executed Ex.A1 agreeing to repay the loan of Rs.5,000/- with 36% interest. As on the date of suit, towards principal and interest a total sum of Rs.8960/- was due and payable by the revision petitioners.
5. In the written statement filed by the first defendant/ revision petitioner, he denied the execution of the promissory note. According to the first defendant, besides the amount of Rs.5,000/- borrowed on 01.02.1993, he borrowed another sum of Rs.19,900/- from plaintiff on 11.02.1993 and he discharged the entire amount in installments and the payments were recorded in a receipt book. The first defendant further states he paid the entire amount and the payments made were recorded in Ex.B1 issued by the plaintiff. The said Ex.B1 was marked through the DW1.
6. In the course of cross examination, PW1 also admitted that he issued the receipt book Ex.B1 to the first defendant/revision petitioner herein. In Ex.B1 the first entry was made by PW1 and other nine enteres were stated to be made by the wife of PW1. The first defendant stated that he has not borrowed any amount from G.Sundari, who is none other than, the wife of PW1. DW1, further deposed that with regard to interest portion, a sum of Rs.1500/- was deducted from and out of the principle and the first defendant received only a sum of Rs.3,500/- out of Rs.5,000/-.
7. On the basis of the evidence made available, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the first defendant has discharged his burden on the basis of Ex.B1 receipt book. Further, the trial Court while dismissing the suit found that the failure on the part of the Plaintiff/first respondent herein to produce the books of accounts is fatal to his case.
8. However, the first Appellate Court held that the first defendant/revision petitioner, no where in his evidence, said that he had paid the amount to the wife of plaintiff/first respondent herein. The first defendant, in his evidence says that the clerk employed by plaintiff will receive the amount and put the signature of the wife of plaintiff. On the contrary, in the written statement of the first defendant, he only stated that he made payment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff involved in money lending business and sometime, in his absence, his brothers would receive the payments on his behalf but his wife had never received the payment from the debtors. The PW1 indulged in giving loan to various persons besides being a Partner in Manikandan Finance, however, Ex.A1 was not issued in the name any financial firm, but it was executed in his individual name, that being so, asking the plaintiff to produce the ledger account to discharge his onus would not arises at all. Therefore, the Lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his case and set aside the judgment of the trial court.
9. Aggrieved by the order of the Lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.17 of 1996,
