1 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) AT
KHAMMAM.
Dated, this the, 02nd day of September, 2016
Present:- Sri Dr.V.Radhakrishna Krupa Sagar, I Addl. District Judge, Khammam. FAC.II Addl. District Judge (FTC), Khammam.
O.S.No.4 of 2010
BETWEEN: 1.M/s.Suprasanna Granites, Velugumatla, rep. by its Prop:Bhavanasi Keshava Rao, S/o.Rajagopalam, age:60 years, occu:business, r/o.H.No.6-1-43, V.D.O's Colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam town,
2. Bhavanasi Keshava rao, S/o.Rajagopalam, age:60 years, H.No.6-1-43, V.D.O's Colony, Khaapuram Haveli, Khammam town.
...Plaintiffs.
And
1. Bhavanasi Sunitha, W/o.late Sanker Rao, age:32 years, occu:house-hold,
2. Bhavanasi Ajay, S/o.late Sanker Rao, age:15 years, occu:student,
3. Bhavanasi Pavan, S/o.late Sanker Rao, age:12 years, occu:student, All are residents of H.No.2-1-276, Raghava Mahal Road, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam town and District,
4. S.R.Granites, Velugumatla rep. by its Pro. Smt. Bhavanasi Sunitha, W/o.late Shanker Rao, age:32 years, occu:House hold and business, r/o.H.No.2-1-276, Raghava Mahal Road, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam town and District,
5. Vangaveeti Rama Krishna, S/o.Rangaiah, age:48 years, Occu:Hotel business, r/o.H.No.2-1-276, Raghava Mahal Road, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam town and district,
6. Karur Vysya Bank, Khammam Branch, Sunder Talkies road, Khammam rep. by its Manager. Defendant No.6 was impleaded as per the Orders in I.A.No.200/2011, dt.29-04-2011).
...Defendants.
This suits is coming before me on 04-03-2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.P.Satyanarayana Rao, Counsel for Plaintiffs and Sri P.B.Sri Ramulu, Counsel for defendants No.1 to 3; suit against D.4 was dismissed and suit against D.5 and D.6 was also dismissed; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing counsel for plaintiffs and defendants; having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs. Rs.17,23,543/- (Rs.Seventeen lakhs twenty three thousands five hundred and forty three only) with 2 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
12% interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs and such other reliefs.
2.In the plaint, it is stated that first plaintiff is a proprietary concern, doing granite business in Velugumatla village and it is owned by second plaintiff. Defendant No.4 is a proprietary concern, engaged in granite business, owned by Sri B.Sanker Rao who died on 16-12-2009.
Defendant No.1 is wife and defendants No.2 and 3 are minor children and class I legal heirs and succeeded Defendant No.4 proprietary concern, on the death of late Sri B.Sankar Rao. Late Sankar Rao is son of natural elder brother of second plaintiff. Thus, Defendants No.1 to 3 and second plaintiff are related to one another.
3.During the life time of late Sri B.Sankar Rao, there were regular business transactions between plaintiffs and defendant No.4. Plaintiff used to purchase finished granite tiles from Defendant No.4 on regular basis. These transactions were on some occasions by way of cash and some occasions on credit and on some occasions plaintiff used to give money in advance for the supply. These business transactions occurred from April, 2007 till the death of Mr.B.Sankar Rao. As on the date of his death, as per accounts maintained by plaintiffs, Defendant No.4 was overdue to pay Rs.13,23,543/- (Rs.thirteen lakhs twenty three thousands five hundred and forty three only). Out of the said amount, one transaction for Rs.62,893/- (Rs.Sixty two thousands eight hundred and ninety three only) by way of cheque dt.14-12-2009 was one paid by plaintiffs to the Electricity Department on behalf of Defendant No.4 for the electricity charges due on the part of Defendant No.4. Another amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty five thousands only) paid by cheque
dated 15-12-2009 by plaintiff was given to Defendant No.5 to meet the
medical expenses for treatment of late Sri B.Sankar Rao when he was in 3 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
hospital at Hyderabad. Defendant No.5 was co-son-in-law of late Sri
B.Sankar Rao. Rest of the amounts given by way of cheques mentioned in the Ledger Extracts were all given to Defendant No.4 towards advance money for supply of finished granite tiles and Defendant No.4 did not supply and therefore, his successors are liable to repay.
4.It is further stated that on 22-02-2007 late Sri B.Sankar Rao borrowed cash of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.Four lakhs only) from Plaintiff No.2 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay it with 12% interest per annum. Subsequently, late Sri B.Sankar Rao paid Rs.36,000/- (Rs.thirty six thousands only) towards interest and endorsed it on the back of the pronote.
5.On the death of Sri B.Sankar Rao, second plaintiff demanded defendants for repayment of all the above dues and they promised to repay it by selling immovable properties of late Sri B.Sankar Rao. But thereafter, they started avoiding payment on one pretext or the other and they are now in a hurry to sell away the properties to defraud the plaintiffs. In the present suit interest is waived, considering that Sri
B.Sankar Rao died and he was his close relative. In these circumstances, this suit.
6.Defendants No.1 to 4 filed a common written statement, wherein they admitted relationship among defendants and the description of business firms on both sides and death of Sri B.Sankar Rao and admitted existence of business transactions between both the firms. Rest of the plaint allegations are denied as false. It is stated that the transactions were always by way of bills raised by Defendant No.4 for the material sold and payment on part of plaintiffs were always in the form of cheques only. Cash payments are created for the purpose of this case.
4 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
Ledger Extracts are incorrect. The allegation that always plaintiffs paid money in advance for supply of granites is incorrect. It is further mentioned that after plaintiffs placed order for supply on occasions when material was not ready, the tiles would be supplied in small lots and after completion of marking activity and calculation of material, final bill would be raised and in the meantime, towards supply of material, first plaintiff used to make part payments through cheques. Styling such part payments as advance towards supply of material is false. In the market, there was abundant supply of granite tiles and it is ridiculous to say that plaintiff paid advance amount to Defendant No.4 for several purchases made by him. Late Sri B.Sankar Rao never borrowed money, never executed pronote and never made part payment and the plaint alleged prontoe is a fabricated document and a perusal of that pronote shows, it was executed on 22-02-2001 and therefore, it is apparently barred by limitation. There was no demand from Plaintiff to these defendants for repayment of money and there was no refusal on part of defendants as alleged in the plaint.
7.Taking advantage of his close relationship, second plaintiff expressed his desire to purchase granite factory and offered price that was at lower than market value and the defendants refused for it and the plaintiff bore grudge and openly challenged that Defendant No.1 could not sell the factory to anyone except to him. With that evil design, after fabricating the accounts, this false suit is filed. The suit claims for individual liability against defendants for the alleged debts of late Sri
B.Sankar Rao and that is not maintainable. There is no cause of action.
For these reasons, they prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
8.On 07-06-2011 plaintiffs not pressed the suit against Defendant
No.6 and therefore, the suit against Defendant No.6 was dismissed as 5 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
not pressed. On 28-06-2016 plaintiffs filed Memo not pressing the suit against Defendant No.5. Therefore, suit against Defendant No.5 was dismissed as not pressed.
9.One of my learned predecessors in office settled the following
Issues for trial:
1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for suit claim?
2.Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
3.Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file this suit?
4. To what relief ?
10.To prove their respective cases, second plaintiff testified as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.25. Defendant No.1 testified as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 which is relatable to Ex.A.17.
11.Learned counsel on both sides submitted oral arguments and written arguments. For defendants legal authorities were cited.
12.ISSUE NO.1:
The total claim in the suit is Rs.17,23,543/-. Going by the record, this can be considered in two (2) separate parts. As per para No.7 of plaint, Rs.13,23,543/- is claimed based on khata/account. Rs.4,00,000/- is claimed based on Ex.A.2 pronote. These two (2) parts have to be dealt with separately. To begin with the claim based on khata is considered.
13.Pleadings on both sides and evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 indicate that the plaintiffs and defendants are related to one another. Late Sri
B.Sankar Rao is husband of Defendant No.1 and father of Defendants
No.2 and 3. He was son of elder brother of second plaintiff. Sri B.Sankar
Rao died on 16-12-2009. These facts are not in dispute.
6 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
14.Second plaintiff is proprietor of first plaintiff which is
M/s.Suprasanna granites. Defendant No.4 is S.R.Granites which was a proprietary concern of late Sri B.Sankar Rao. As per the pleadings on both sides and evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1, between these two (2) proprietary firms, there were business transactions during the lifetime of late Sri B.Sankar Rao. The claim based on khata is concerning those business transactions in most of its part.
15.In his evidence P.W.1 said that late Sri Sankar Rao commenced his business in the year, 1998. P.W.1 said that he commenced his business in the year, 1999-2000. During his evidence P.W.1 produced Ex.A.9 to A.13
Ledgers and indicated specific entries. He also produced Exs.A.15 to
A.17 cash books which the witness said that they are the day books also, since the advent of computerization of accounts. Exs.A.23 to A.25 are the statements of accounts maintained by the bank. All these documents are for the purpose of proving the business transactions between the business firms. P.W.1 also produced Exs.A.5 to Ex.A.7
Income Tax Returns of the business firm to show that from time to time, how in his returns he was showing the money due from Defendant No.4.
He further filed Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.3 computerized statement of bank account. Those two (2) documents were exhibited on 01-12-2011 during the time of one of my learned predecessors in office and it was mentioned that they were marked subject to objection. The record does not indicate, what was the objection raised against those documents.
P.W.1 also produced Ex.A.8 which is an attested true copy of statement of account particulars of purchase and sale on part of plaintiff from
Defendant No.4. That was the prescribed form, which in its original, appears to have been submitted to the Asst., Director of Mines and
Geology. Defendant No.1 as D.W.1 gave her evidence. In her cross- 7 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
examination, she said that she had gone through all the documents filed by the plaintiff. Thus, defendants are aware of the various entries available in the above referred books of accounts. In her evidence,
D.W.1 did not point out any particular entry from any of these documents as incorrect. D.W.1 in her examination-in-chief said that during the life time of her husband he had mortgaged his granite factory land and factory premises and residential house and obtained loan from
Karur Vysya Bank, Khammam. P.W.1 was examined in cross and it was elicited from him by the defendants that he stood as surety for the said loan. That was not challenged any further by the defendants through out the trial. This indicates thick relationship and affections between the second plaintiff and late Sri B.Sankar Rao. In her evidence, D.W.1 said that she has no knowledge of business transactions of her husband and therefore, after his death, she sold out the granite factory and repaid the bank loan. As the record indicates, defendants did not produce any books of account of Defendant No.4 firm in challenge to the claim made by the plaintiffs. It is not their case that Defendant No.4 firm had not maintained any accounts during the course of its business.
The reason for non-production of any of their business accounts is also not mentioned anywhere during the entire trial and even in the written arguments. When the dispute is revolving around the khata, production of account books by both sides would enable the court to arrive at appropriate conclusions. Account books of defendants are no way irrelevant in deciding the dispute that arose in this suit. The defendants who had such account books within their control, did not choose to produce them and thus, it has to be recorded that they in a way suppressed the material evidence from consideration of the court. It may be recorded that truth of a fact cannot be understood from a vacuum and it has to be arrived at only from the facts adduced before 8 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
the court. As the evidence came to the record, the situation is that the plaintiffs filed the records and accounts available with them and the defendants did not produce any such books and did not specify the falsity of any particular entry in the account books of plaintiff and did not refer to their account books to show that the fact is otherwise. It is with this material on record, the dispute has to be resolved.
16.In the plaint, It is mentioned that the plaintiff used to purchase finished granite tiles from Defendant No.4. It indicates that Defendant
No.4 procures raw materials and prepares finished granite tiles and sells them. At para No.3 of the plaint, the mode of business transactions is narrated. It is stated that it was sometimes on cash and sometimes on credit. It further says that on some occasions, plaintiff used to give money in advance for the orders placed. According to defendants and as could be seen from Para No.4 of written arguments filed on their behalf, defendants do not dispute any transaction through cheques that occurred between the parties and it only says that all the cash transactions referred in the account books are cooked up for the case purpose. At page No.2 of the written statement, it is mentioned that on occasions when material was not ready with Defendant No.4 to comply with the orders placed by plaintiffs, Defendant No.4 used to supply the goods in small lots and before the final bill was raised and during that period, plaintiff used to make part payments through cheques and such payments cannot be called as payments in advance. P.W.1 in his cross- examination clearly asserted that late Sankar Rao was taking money from him in advance telling him that he had to pay money to his suppliers and purchase raw material. On consideration of the above referred facts, it appears that on many occasions, plaintiff after placing orders was paying money to late Sri Sankar Rao even before Sri Shankar 9 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
Rao supplied goods to him. The explanation offered by plaintiff for making such payments appears quite probable, since Defendant No.4 had to procure raw material and make them into finished granite tiles and all that work required lot of money. It is already seen that
Defendant No.4/late Sri Sankar Rao was in debts and it was quite natural that he required money to do day to day business. In such circumstances, obtaining money in advance for the goods to be supplied is quite natural. As could be seen from the written arguments of the defendants and the evidence brought on record, more cash transactions took place in the year, 2009 and as per the evidence of P.W.1, late Sri
Sankar Rao became seriously sick and was hospitalized at Hyderabad and he died in December, 2009. D.W.1 in her evidence said that she spent about Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.Five lakhs only) for the treatment of her husband. She added that they did not utilize money belonging to their business firm/Defendant No.4. She has not indicated what was the other source of income for her and late Sri Sankar Rao to meet the expenses. No witness came and no document is filed to find any probability and truth in her version. From these facts and circumstances, all the probabilities when assessed indicate that the plaintiffs on many occasions paid money to D.4 for supply of goods. So far as transactions through cheques are concerned defendants have not disputed the correctness of entries in the registers produced by plaintiffs. A perusal of the Ledgers, cash books, income tax returns, bank account statement indicate the business transactions between the parties and the money overdue from Defendant No.4 firm to the plaintiff. It is averred in the plaint at para No.4 and P.W.1 also deposed that Rs.62,893/- ( Rs.Sixty two thousands eight hundred and ninety three only) was paid by plaintiffs through a cheque dt.14-12-2009 towards electricity charges incurred by Defendant No.4. D.W.1 in her 10 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
evidence admitted plaintiff paying such electricity charges. In his evidence, P.W.1 said that through his son, he remitted Rs.4,00,000/- ( Rs.four lakhs only) when Mr. Sanker Rao was undergoing treatment.
D.W.1 in her examination in chief admitted that remittance of
Rs.4,00,000/- ( Rs.four lakhs only) by second plaintiff. However, concerning these two (2) items, D.W.1 said that she was told by her husband that plaintiff was due to pay money to them and only on demand, plaintiffs paid such amounts. It may be recorded here that
D.W.1 failed to show any particulars as to how and when plaintiff was due to pay so much money to them. Having taken such a positive stance, it is for defendants to prove it. They did not do it. In fact, the written statement does not give any impression about any part of the claim being sought to be set off. Thus, there appears no basis to believe what
D.W.1 said in this regard. In these circumstances, these two (2) personal transactions emanating from khata of plaintiff stand proved.
17.As per the evidence of P.W.1, under the khata , defendants are due to pay Rs.13,23,543/-. According to him on various occasions when he paid this money for supply of finished granite tiles, late Sri B.Sankar
Rao having received that money either through cash or through cheque, failed to supply goods and he became sick and died thereafter and defendants No.1 to 3 despite demands neither supplied goods nor repaid money. D.W.1 in her cross examination said and I extract here the same:
“ There were business transactions between plaintiff and
Defendant No.4 during the lifetime of my husband. It is not true to say that during the life time of my husband, late
B.Sankar Rao, there were business transactions and that
Rs.13,23,543/- were paid by plaintiff through cheques and that they were deposited into account of S.R.Granties for supply of goods and that the amount is not refunded and stock was not 11 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
supplied. Witness admits that such amount is deposited in bank into account of S.R.Granites.”
The purport of the above evidence is clear on its face that
Rs.13,23,543/- (Rs.Thirteen lakhs twenty three thousands five hundred and forty three only) came from plaintiff into account of Defendant
No.4. It was Defendant No.4 who had to show whether it supplied related goods to plaintiffs. In the alternative, it is for Defendant No.4 to show that this amount was received under specify i.e. bills of goods supplied by Defendant No.4 to plaintiffs. Admittedly, defendants have not shown any documents in proof of either of those situations. The discussion made above, based on evidence, clinchingly shows passing of money from plaintiffs to Defendant No.4 and failure of Defendant No.4 in proving supply of goods for the said amount. That clinches the issue.
However, learned counsel for defendants submit that books of account by themselves cannot raise liability unless they are supported by other documents as required by Sec.34 of Evidence Act and learned counsel cited in that regard Chandradhar Goswamy Vs. Gouhati Bank AIR 1967
SC 1058 and Appasani Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Vs. Chakka
Veera Raja Rao 2007(2) ALD 396 AP. While the statute and the precedent have really laid down such law, the question to be addressed is whether the evidence available on record require application of that
Law. If the case is one where the defendants have denied to have received any such money, then, the plaintiff would have to show their claim by producing the relevant bills etc., besides account books that are produced. In the case at hand defendants having admitted to have received so much money they have taken the burden upon themselves to show how that was not money received by them towards advance, but that was only money that was received towards goods plaintiffs 12 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
already received. The defendants did nothing in that direction and therefore, the burden they have taken up remained with them. In such contingency, the law referred earlier has no scope for its application here. In these circumstances, the claim of plaintiffs based on accounts has to be approved.
18.Before parting with this part, it needs to be mentioned here that as per the evidence of P.W.1 and the case set up in the plaint,
Rs.25,000/-(Rs.twenty five thousands only) out of the khata money was given by plaintiffs to Defendant No.5 to meet the medical expenses of late Sri B.Sankar Rao. In this case, plaintiffs filed Memo and as a consequence, the suit against Defendant No.5 was dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, that part of the claim cannot be made by plaintiffs against rest of the defendants. Hence, from out of Rs.13,23,543/- ( Rs.thirteen lakhs twenty three thousands five hundred and forty three only), Rs.25,000/- ( Rs.twenty five thousands only) have to be deducted.
The balance comes to Rs.12,98,543/- ( Rs.Twelve ninety eight thousands five hundred and forty three only). This is the money due from
Defendant No.4 to plaintiffs concerning their khata.
19.Asper the plaint on 22-02-2007 late Sri Sankar Rao borrowed
Rs.4,00,000/- ( Rs.four lakhs only) from second plaintiff and executed
Ex.A.2 pronote. Referring to this aspect in their written statement, defendants have mentioned that no such transaction occurred and it was a fabricated document. It is also mentioned that the pronote was of the year, 2001 and therefore is barred by limitation. In his evidence
P.W.1 said that Ex.A.2 pronote was scribed by late Sri Sankar Rao himself. While questioning him in cross, that was not challenged by defendants. There is a revenue stamp, across which, there is signature of late Sri Sankar Rao. It was suggested to P.W.1 that the stamp was 13 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
picked up from elsewhere and was pasted on this pronote. Witness denied it as false. That suggestion indicates that the stamp bears the signature of late Sri B.Sankar Rao. Purport of this evidence is that Ex.A.2 pronote was scribed and executed by late Sri Sankar Rao. Learned counsel for defendants submit that this Ex.A.2 is invalid as the signature of Shankar Rao did not extend on any part of the paper beyond the revenue stamp. Learned counsel cited Md.Johny Miya V. Koriginja ( Varala ) Ramesh 2009 (3) ALT 457 (AP). Their Lordships dealt with
Secs.12 and 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 and held that an adhesive stamp shall be properly cancelled and for that signing across the stamp is proper, but the signature must extend to some portion of the document, as otherwise, it is no cancellation and such document cannot be admitted in evidence. There is absolutely, no conflict of opinion on this Law. However, this ruling does not assist the defendants herein. In the above said ruling the document in dispute was sought to be exhibited in evidence, at which time, objection concerning improper cancellation was taken. Learned trial court negatived the objection. In the revision, their lordships approved the objection and set aside the order of learned trial court. In the case at hand, when Ex.A.2 pronote was exhibited, the defendants did not raise any objection and it came on record as a piece of evidence. Once it became evidence, it cannot be challenged before the same court at any stage of the same proceedings.
That is the Law laid down in Sec.36 of Stamp Act. That principle can also be seen from Valluru China Laxmi Vs. Majji Dharma Rao 2007 (6) ALT 69 AP. In fact, in the already cited ruling, their lordships also noticed this ruling and distinguished it saying that on facts available before their
Lordships that ruling had no application. For the Law is available, the question of stamp duty shall be a question that shall be raised before admitting a document and if one fails to raise an objection and if the 14 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
document came to be exhibited in evidence, it cannot be questioned at the subsequent stage and going by Sec.36 of Stamp Act, the contention of defendants is negatived. It is also clear that in Valluru Chinna
Laxmi's case referred above, their Lordships have said that on question of stamp, there should have been a pleading in the written statement also. Going by that rule, if we verified the written statement of defendants, we could not find any such relevant pleading. For these reasons, this contention of defendants is negatived. Coming to the question as to whether this pronote is of the year, 2007 or of the year, 2001, I find by observing through the naked eye that it is of the year, 2007. In that view of the matter, the suit is not barred by limitation.
20.From the discussion made above, concerning Khata, plaintiff is found entitled for Rs.12,98,543/- (Rs.twelve lakhs ninety eight thousands five hundred and forty three only) and concerning pronote, they are entitled for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.four lakhs only) (Plaintiffs did not claim interest over these amounts till the date of suit). Hence,the plaintiffs are entitled for Rs.16,98,543/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs ninety eight thousands five hundred and forty three only). Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs.
20.POINT NO.2:
That part of the suit which is based on khata has revealed through its accounts exhibited in evidence that the transactions even pertain to the year, 2009 and this suit was filed in the year, 2010. Therefore, the claim is well within time. Concerning claim based on pronote, it was already found that the pronote is well within time. Hence, suit is not barred by limitation. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs.
15 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
21.POINT NO.3:
A reading of the plaint indicated various business transactions and the relationship between the parties and the accounts and Negotiable
Instrument and pleadings also indicated the demands raised by the plaintiffs and failure of their compliance by defendants. Thus, on its face, plaint indicates cause of action. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs.
22.POINT NO.4:
It is un-disputed that Defendants No.1 to 3 had no personal or business transactions with plaintiffs. It is the case of plaintiffs that the entire money was due from late Sri Sankar Rao who was the proprietor of Defendant No.4 firm. Defendants admitted succession to late Sri
B.Sankar Rao. Since Defendants No.1 to 3 are not personally indebted to plaintiffs, there shall be no personal decree as against them. The claim of plaintiffs can be only as against the estate of late Sri B.Sankar
Rao to the extent that is lying in the hands of Defendants No.1 to 3. In the plaint, prayer was made both against persons of defendants and the properties lying with them, which came from late Sri B.Sankar Rao. To the extent of relief of personal decree against Defendants No.1 to 3, the same is negatived as that is against Law. To the extent of the relief, that claims against estate of late Sri B.Sankar Rao lying in the hands of the Defendants, the decree shall be passed. Evidence of D.W.1 indicated that she sold out D.4. D.4 is a proprietary concern and has no juristic personality to sue and be sued. Hence claim against D.4 is dismissed.
Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.
23. In the result, this suit is decreed partly in favour of plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.16,98,543/- (Rs.Sixteen lakhs ninety 16 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
eight thousands five hundred and forty three only) from out of estate of late Bhavanasi Shankar Rao lying in the hands of Defendants No.1 to
3. Plaintiffs are also entitled to 12% interest per annum over the said amount from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% interest per annum till realisation. Plaintiffs are entitled to proportionate suit costs. Rest of the suit claim is dismissed. Suit against
Defendant No.4 is dismissed. Suit against D.5 and D.6 already stood dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, on this, the 02nd day of September,
2016.
I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
KHAMMAM.
FAC. II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC),
KHAMMAM.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1.Bhavanasi Kesava Rao.
DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1. B.Sunitha.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A.1. Computerized Ledger Account maintained by 1st plaintiff in the name of S.R.Granites from 01-04-2007 to 15-12-2009, Ex.A.2. Original Promissory note executed by Bhavanasi Shankar Rao in favour of P.W.1 for Rs.4,00,000/-, dt. 22-02-2007, Ex.A.3. Computerized statement of Bank Account maintained in the name of 1st plaintiff by Andhra Bank, BSC, Khammam, Ex.A.4. Firm Registration Certificate issued by Dy. Director of Mines & Geology, Warangal in the name of 1st plaintiff, Exs.A.5 to A.7: Income Tax returns of plaintiff No.1 for the period 2007-08 to 2009-10 , Ex.A.8. Attested copy of statement of account particulars of purchase and sales of SR Granties issued by Asst., Director of Mines and geology, dt.07-12-2009, Ex.A.9. Ledger Extract of 1st plaintiff firm for the period 01-04-2007 to 31.03.2008, Ex.A.10. Relevant pages No.82 in Ex.A.9, Ex.A.11. Ledger Extract of 1st plaintiff firm for the period 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2009, Ex.A.12. Relevant pages No.82 to 85 in Ex.A.11, 17 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.
Ex.A.13. Ledger extract of 1st plaintiff firm for the period 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2010, Ex.A.14. Relevant pages No.47 and 48 in Ex.A.13, Ex.A.15. Day Book (cash book) of 1st plaintiff firm for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31-03-2008, Ex.A.16. Day Book (cash book) of 1st plaintiff firm for the period from 01.4.2008 to 31-03-2009, Ex.A.17. Day book (cash book) of 1st plaintiff firm for the period from 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2010, Ex.A.18 to Ex.A.22: relevant pages No.3, 11, 14, 23, 25 in Ex.A.17, Ex.A.23 to Ex.A.25. Bank Statements of 1st plaintiff firm for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31-03-2008, 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2009 and 01.04.2009 to 27-01-2010.
DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B.1. Relevant entry in Ex.A.13.
I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
KHAMMAM.
FAC.II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC),
KHAMMAM.
Compare by:
.
18 O.S.No.4 of 2010 , dt.02-09-2016.