IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MIRYALAGUDA.
(Dated, this, the 21st day of April, 2017)
PRESENT: SRI Y. SATHYENDRA,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MIRYALAGUDA.
O.S.NO. 150 OF 2013
Between:
Shriram Chits Private Limited, Miryalaguda Branch, represented by its authorized executive Mohammad Maqbool S/o Jahangeer, aged: 30 years, R/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. … PLAINTIFF. AND
1. Somaraju Sowjanya W/o Venkateshwarlu, aged: 28 years, Occu: Business, R/o Buggabai gudem, Vemulapally mandal, Nalgonda District.
2. Emmadi Venkateshwarlu S/o Sathaiah, aged: 50 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.3-80/1, Old Bazar, Chityal, Nalgonda District.
3. Veeramalla Narsimhulu S/o Sri Ramulu, aged: 48 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.2-59, Bodangiparthy, Chandur mandal, Nalgonda District.
4. Burri Ram Reddy S/o Pulla Reddy, aged: 50 years, Occu: Teacher, Primary School, Agamothkur, Vemulapally mandal R/o Buggabai gudem, Vemulapally mandal, Nalgonda District.
5. Somavarapu Venkateshwarlu S/o Satyanarayana, aged: 33 years, Occu: Business, R/o Buggabavigudem, Vemulapally mandal, Nalgonda District. … DEFENDANTS.
This suit coming before me on 03-04-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Counsel for the defendant No.1 and the defendants No.2, 3 and 5 were set exparte and suit against defendant No.4 is dismissed as abated and after having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:- : J U D G M E N T :
1.Plaintiff company filed this suit for recovery of money from defendants No.1 to 5 jointly and severally. First defendant is chit subscriber whereas other defendants No.2 to 5 are guarantors.
Page 2 of 7
2.In this suit, first defendant alone contested the suit by filing written statement. Defendants No.2, 3 and 5 remained exparte upon publication treated as sufficient substituted service. In this case, defendant No.4 died and no steps were taken against his legal representatives and hence this suit was dismissed as abated against defendant No.4
3.CASE OF DEFENANT No.1:
(i)She admitted suit documents as subscriber of suit chit. She admitted payment voucher and receiving of bid amount and she admitted her default also.
(ii)First defendant submitted that calculation memo filed by plaintiff company is not correct and alleged that huge rate of interest was charged. Further she is entitled to receive mandatory dividends. She disputed the calculation. She prayed for installments decree @
Rs.1,000/- per month.
(iii)First defendant prayed for discharge of defendants No.2 to 4 basing on her assurance to discharge actual due amount in installments.
4.Basing on the pleadings above, the following issues were settled for trial:
1. Whether plaintiff company is entitled to recover suit claimed amount with interest from defendants, if so, what is the liability of defendants?
2. Whether plaintiff company has to add monthly dividend amount to the amounts already paid by first defendant as claimed by him?
O.S.No.150 OF 2013
Page 3 of 7
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree payable in monthly installments @ Rs.1,000/- per month as prayed?
4. To what other relief?
5.At the stage of trial, plaintiff company examined Sri Mohammad
Maqbool as PW-1 and produced Exs.A-1 to A-10. On the side of first defendant no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.
6.Heard arguments and perused the record.
7.Issues No.1 and 2:
1. Whether plaintiff company is entitled to recover suit claimed amount with interest from defendants, if so, what is the liability of defendants?
2. Whether plaintiff company has to add monthly dividend amount to the amounts already paid by first defendant as claimed by him?
(i)PW-1 Mohammad Maqbool deposed that defendant No.1 joined as a member of chit fund scheme of plaintiff company and was allotted Ticket
No.MVLC-16/2, the total value of chit Rs.5,00,000/- to be subscribed at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month for 50 months. Defendant No.1 signed on the chit agreement on 30-03-2009. Defendant No.1 herein participated in the auction and agreed to forego Rs.1,91,100/-. The plaintiff confirmed defendant No.1 as a successful bidder in the auction on 21-08-2010. Defendants No.2 to 4 are guarantors of the above chit and they are signed on the chit guarantee agreement on 01-12-2010.
Defendants No.1 to 5 also executed a joint promissory note in favour of the plaintiff company on the same day i.e., on 01-12-2010. Plaintiff paid
O.S.No.150 OF 2013
Page 4 of 7 an amount of Rs.2,78,410/- through cheque No.873872, dated 31-10-2010 and adjusted a sum of Rs.28,490/- on 31-10-2010.
(ii)PW-1 further deposed that defendant No.1 at the time of receiving prized amount of the above chit had committed default in payment of monthly installments from April, 2012 onwards to the plaintiff company.
The plaintiff company issued a legal notice to all the defendants on 09- 10-2012. Defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 5 received the legal notices. The plaintiff company filed the above suit for recovery of due installments and claimed interest @ 12% on the above said amount i.e.,Rs.1,54,057/-.
(iii)In this case, plaintiff company produced Exs.A-1 and A-4 chit agreement signed by defendant No.1 and guarantee agreement signed by defendants No.2 to 5. Plaintiff also produced joint promissory note under
Ex.A-5. Basing on these documents, first defendant is proved as chit subscriber and other defendants as guarantors.
(iv)Plaintiff company produced Exs.A-6 and A-7 bid payable memo and original cash voucher. Basing on these documents plaintiff company established the payment of bid amount in chit transaction in favor of first defendant.
(v)Exs.A-8 and A-9 are legal correspondence made by plaintiff company with defendants prior to suit. All defendants except defendant
No.4 received legal notices but still they did not turn up to make repayment.
(vi)As per guarantee agreement of defendants No.2 to 5, they are jointly and severally liable. Their liability as guarantor is coextensive with principal debtor.
O.S.No.150 OF 2013
Page 5 of 7
(vii)Coming to Ex.A-10 ledger statement of account copy, first defendant seriously disputed the calculation, but she failed to raise any legal claim for allowing dividends as prayed by her. On the other hand, she failed to challenge rate of interest claimed by plaintiff company as per chit agreement. Plaintiff company imposed same rate of interest as agreed. Hence, defendant No.1 cannot question the rate of interest being defaulter.
(viii) Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that being defaulter, defendant No.1 is not entitled to receive any dividends as per chit agreement. First defendant failed to substantiate her defence in issue
No.2.
(ix)In this case, the account depicted in Ex.A-10 is treated as proved by presuming the genuineness and correctness as said entries were made in the regular chit business of plaintiff company under Section 114 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
(x)Basing on the discussion above, plaintiff company is entitled recover the suit claimed amount from defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 jointly and severally. Plaintiff company also produced authorization and certified copy of incorporation to show the maintainability of suit etc.,
Accordingly, issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
8.Issue No.3:
Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree payable in monthly installments @ Rs.1,000/- per month as prayed?
Let us discuss whether first defendant is entitled to seek decree payable in installments. First defendant is a chronic defaulter. She
O.S.No.150 OF 2013
Page 6 of 7 accepted to pay monthly installments @ Rs.10,000/- per month for 50 months for suit chit with face value of Rs.5,00,000/-. She pleads installments @ Rs.1,000/- per month. This suit was filed in the year 2013.
First defendant made her appearance in July, 2013, if she was really bonafide she might have paid some amount at least in installments. She pleaded from July, 2013 itself but she did not pay any amount. She dragged suit proceedings for nearly four years and tried her level best to avoid her liability. In the considered circumstances, she is not entitled for a decree payable in installments. Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered.
9.RATE OF INTEREST:
Considering the chit transaction as commercial transaction, 12% per annum rate of interest is being allowed for pendente lite period.
10.ISSUE No.4: To what other relief?
In the result, this suit is decreed with costs against defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 jointly and severally for Rs.1,54,057/- (Rupees One Lakh fifty four thousand and fifty seven only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. The suit against defendant No.4 is dismissed as abated.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of April, 2017.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MIRYALAGUDA.
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::
O.S.No.150 OF 2013
Page 7 of 7
PW-1: Mohammad Maqbool (Authorized Executive of plaintiff company).
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT No.1:: - NIL – :: EXHIBITS MARKED ::
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::
Ex.A-1: Chit Agreement signed by defendant No.1,
Ex.A-2: Certified copy of Authorization of the plaintiff company,
Ex.A-3: Certified copy of incorporation of the plaintiff company,
Ex.A-4: Guarantee agreement signed by D-2 to D-5,
Ex.A-5: Joint promissory note signed by D-1 to D-5,
Ex.A-6: Bid payable memo,
Ex.A-7: Original Cash Voucher,
Ex.A-8: Office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff company,
Ex.A-9: Served postal acknowledgment cards (04 in number) of legal notice of D-1, D-2, D-3 and D-5,
Ex.A-10: Ledger of account statement copy,
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT No.1:: - NIL -
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MIRYALAGUDA.
O.S.No.150 OF 2013