A statement made to a police officer is excluded from civil proceedings unless the procedural requirements under Section 145 of the Evidence Act are strictly met. Furthermore, absent a proven fiduciary agreement, money claims are subject to the standard three-year limitation period.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

O.S. No.167/2010 was instituted by Sri. Hashim Abu Nabeel against Sri. P.A. Hamza and two others, seeking declaration of title over the plaint schedule immovable properties, with an alternative relief for recovery of money. The suit was decreed in part. Aggrieved thereby, Hashim Abu Nabeel and P.A. Hamza filed R.F.A. Nos.32/2019 and 192/2018, respectively, challenging the decree to the extent it is adverse to them. P.A. Hamza also instituted a suit (O.S. No.8/2015) against Hashim Abu Nabeel and one Shabeer Abdul Khader, seeking a declaration that the amount claimed by Hashim Abu Nabeel was, in fact, due to Shabeer Abdul Khader and not to Hashim Abu Nabeel. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the decree, P.A. Hamza has preferred R.F.A. No.348/2018.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in O.S. No.167/2010. The plaintiff (Hashim Abu Nabeel) alleged in the suit that, while he was abroad, he had sent a sum of Rs.1.96 crores to P.A. Hamza, the 1st defendant, for the purchase of 2.5 acres of land situated alongside the Kozhikode Mini Bye-pass in Panniyamkara Village in his name. However, P.A. Hamza purchased the properties (comprising 12 items) in the name of the 2nd defendant, a company owned by him, and fraudulently concealed the said fact from the plaintiff until 2010. Ext.A1 series receipts evidence the payment of Rs.1.96 crores by the plaintiff to Hamza through Thomas Cook, an overseas money transfer facility.

3. The 1st defendant, P.A. Hamza has set up an entirely different plea. He had earlier been sued by Shabeer Abdul Khader (Shabeer) for recovery of money as O.S.116/2009. The dispute was settled before the Lok Adalat, wherein Hamza agreed to pay Rs.3,75,00,000/- (Ext.A16) to Shabeer, which amount was subsequently paid in execution of the decree. According to the first defendant, Shabeer had entrusted to him a total sum of Rs.8.32 crores for establishing a Dental College under his chairmanship. The amount remitted by the plaintiff (Rs.1.96 crores) to the 1st defendant allegedly formed part of the sum paid by Shabeer. In other words, the plaintiff merely acted as a remitter of funds belonging to Shabeer through a money transfer agency and, therefore, had no proprietary interest in the amount so remitted. Consequently, according to the 1st defendant, no amount is due to the plaintiff. Subsequently, P.A. Hamza instituted O.S. No.8/2015 against the plaintiff and Shabeer seeking a declaration that the sum of Rs.1,96,00,000/- claimed by the plaintiff forms part of the decree debt in O.S.No.116/2009 filed by Shabeer against him, and also seeking a declaration as to whether the plaintiff or Shabeer is entitled to the said amount. Hashim Abu Nabeel and Shabeer were arrayed as defendants in the said suit. Shabeer remained ex parte.

4. Both suits were jointly tried, taking O.S. No.167/2010 as the leading case. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A28 were marked in evidence. On the side of the defendants, DW1 to DW4 were examined and Exts.B1 to B64 were marked. Upon an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court partly decreed the suit filed by