THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1113 OF 2010 Dated:08.07.2011 Between: K.V.V.Satyanarayana .. Appellant And Shriram Chits Limited, represented by Its Regional Manager and GPA Holder Sri G.B.Subba Rao, S/o.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Aged 40 years, R/o.Rajahmundry and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1113 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the first defendant in O.S.No.53 of 2001. The suit filed by the first respondent (hereafter called ‘the plaintiff’) against the appellant (hereafter called ‘the first defendant’) and the second respondent (hereafter called ‘the second defendant’) was decreed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapet, East Godavari District. The same was confirmed in A.S.No.141 of 2003 dated 27.12.2006 by the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. The plaintiff is a chit fund company. The suit was instituted for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,09,168/-. It is alleged that the first defendant entered into a chit agreement on 08.04.1997. The value of the chit is of Rs.2,00,000/-. The instalment of Rs.4,000/- per month has to be paid for a period of 50 months. The first defendant became prized subscriber agreeing to forego Rs.1,18,000/- out of the chit value. The prize amount was paid. The second defendant executed an agreement of guarantee and also the promissory note as security. But the first defendant committed default in payment of instalments from April, 1998. The defendants have filed the written statement alleging that the instalments were paid even after 10.04.1998 and that the plaintiff did not credit the dividend due properly. It is also alleged that the signatures were obtained on some type-written papers leaving blanks unfilled and therefore the suit cannot be decreed. The trial Court framed six issues. The plaintiff examined three witnesses and marked Exs.A1 to A15. The defendants examined two witnesses and marked Exs.B1 to B3. After considering the disputed evidence, the trial Court recorded a finding that the first defendant paid 24 instalments, totaling a sum of Rs.96,000/-, and that he did not pay the amounts thereafter and therefore the decree was passed. The first appellate Court confirmed the same. The Counsel for appellant submits that the Courts below failed to consider the evidence properly and were in error in construing the documentary evidence in favour of the plaintiff. It is also submitted that the amount which was not paid as dividend ought to have been adjusted towards the amount due. The plea of the first defendant before the trial Court was two fold; that he was not paid the entire prize amount and that the amounts he paid after 10.04.1998 were not given credit. The trial Court found these two issues against the first defendant. Before the first appellate Court, however, it was pointed out that such a plea was not taken in the written statement, though as DW.1 the first defendant deposed that he received only Rs.60,000/-. If the plaintiff paid less money than payable as a prized bidder, nothing prevented the first defendant to mention the same after receiving Ex.A7 legal notice. But he did not do so. Even in the written statement, he did not accept such a plea. Therefore, it should be brushed aside as an after-thought. The reliance placed by the first defendant that even as per Ex.A7 he paid instalments after April, 1998 was correctly not accepted by the first appellate Court as a typographical mistake. All through, the case of the plaintiff was that the first defendant did not pay the amount after 10.04.1998. The issues that arise in a case of this nature are essentially questions of fact and both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence and gave convincing reasons in support of their findings. The Second Appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 08.07.2011 KH