IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.C.C.A.No.195 of 2002 Between: V.L.N. Rao .. Appellant AND M/s. Asian Overseas Trading Company, represented by its Proprietor and 5 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: (per G. Bhavani Prasad, J) The Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.247 of 1996 dated 13-03-2002 on the file of the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff claimed to be a registered Export and Import Trading Company, which secured an export order for supply of 17 Metric Tonnes of fresh crop okra seeds from the 3rd defendant through fax message on 24-4-1995 and the plaintiff purchased packing materials under the bills dated 22-5-1995, 25-5-1995 and 16-6-1995 for execution of the export order. The 1st defendant running a proprietory concern offered to supply the seeds as per quality and quantity specifications stipulated by the importer at mutually agreed rate as per agreement dated 1-7-1995 and the 1st defendant acknowledged the same under a separate stamped receipt. The 1st defendant was given the required printed packing material by the plaintiff and the duly packed material was supplied by the 1st defendant making the plaintiff believe the quality of the goods to be strictly as per the stipulations of the Export Order and as per the samples earlier supplied and tested. The consignment was dispatched through ICD, Hyderabad via Bombay Port in two consignments of 381 bags and 44 bags as per Bills of Lading dated 10-07-1995 and 19-07-1995. The goods were handled by the 5th defendant on pre-paid freight charges by the plaintiff at Rs.55,669/- and Rs.17,944/- under bills dated 22-07-1995 and 27- 07-1995. Export cess of Rs.3,787/- was also paid by the plaintiff, but the 3rd defendant sent a fax message on 20-09-1995 stating that the Director General of National Centre for Agricultural Research of Saudi Arabia declared the okra seeds to be unfit for plantation due to low germination and heavy primary and secondary fungus, due to which they have to be destroyed or taken back to India. The plaintiff confronted the 1st defendant with the message and the 1st defendant gave a letter in his own hand on 21-09-1995 to bear the costs of Rs.60,000/- for recalling the said stocks to India and personally requested to get back the stocks without destruction. The plaintiff requested the 3rd defendant to return the consignment by a letter dated 23-09-1995. The plaintiff also asked the 1st defendant to arrange for payment of Rs.60,000/- by a telegram dated 31-10-1995. The rejected okra seeds were returned to Bombay Port on 11-11-1995 and the 1st defendant instead of discharging his liability, filed a false complaint registered as Cr.No.344 of 1995 of Narayanaguda Police Station. The plaintiff also filed a criminal complaint in turn and issued a legal notice dated 14-11-1995 for which the 1st defendant stated on 29-11-1995 that his advocate will reply. No such reply was received and the returned seeds lying in the vessel at Bombay Port pending de-stuffing and discharging were threatened to be disposed of by sales through public auction by the Bombay Port Trust. The plaintiff issued another legal notice to the 1st defendant on 22-01-1996 and gave a telegraphic notice on 21-02-1996, but in vain. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed Rs.2,40,000/- towards amount paid to the 1st defendant, Rs.35,000/- towards cotton cloth, Rs.25,080-50ps. towards cost of printing and stitching charges, Rs.19,307/- towards cost of new gunny bags, Rs.55,669/- towards freight charges, Rs.17,944/- towards freight charges, Rs.3,787/- towards export cess, Rs.50,000/- towards miscellaneous and incidental expenses, Rs.60,000/- towards repatriation charges, Rs.2,40,000/- towards detention charges, Rs.1,20,000/- towards damages at 50% of the value, Rs.2,95,562/- towards loss of expectancy and Rs.71,200/- towards interest on expenditure. The suit sum of Rs.12,33,500/- is sought to be recovered with interest and costs jointly and severally from defendants 1 and 2, as the 2nd defendant came forward to undertake the entire liability along with the 1st defendant. The plaintiff also sought for a decree against defendants 4 to 6 not to destroy or otherwise dispose of the returned seeds, while no relief was sought for against the 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff purchased about 8 Metric Tonnes of seeds from M/s. Beeyan Seeds, Choutuppal on 10-05-1995, for which a cheque for Rs.1,57,250/- was issued on 8-5-1995. The remaining 9 Metric Tonnes was arranged by the 1st defendant, who was paid Rs.82,750/- on 1-7-1995 through cheque, leaving a balance of Rs.74,500/- @ Rs.18.50ps. per K.G. The plaintiff had no valid licence under the Seeds Act and the 2nd defendant had no concern with the suit transaction. The consideration is only to be Rs.2,04,000/- if the rate mentioned in the agreement dated 1-7- 1995 is true and at the request of the plaintiff, bills and delivery challan were issued by the 1st defendant on 3-7-1995 as business adjustments which act of benevolence was misused by the plaintiff. The plaintiff took samples after the material was supplied in total and obtained test report and got the material quarantined. The 1st defendant was not concerned with any further packing of the seeds. The plaintiff has to prove his allegations about the transmitting the goods and it is not known whether the same material supplied by the 1st defendant in part was exported or not. The 1st defendant is a qualified agricultural graduate with good reputation in the market as a consultant etc., and has no reason to supply any sub-standard quality seeds. The plaintiff himself attended to cleaning, segregating and packing and sealing the seeds with no role for the 1st defendant in packing the material and he did not take any precautions as required. The agreement and receipt dated 1-7-1995 were created on blank papers on which the signatures of the 1st defendant were obtained under force, fraud and threat to life. There was no reason to obtain thumb impressions from a literate person and the letter dated 21-09-1995 was similarly obtained. Immediately, the 1st defendant gave a report to the police and the 1st defendant did not give any reply to the telegram etc., as the police investigation was in progress. The 1st defendant has no liability to pay any further charges or damages and the plaintiff, who was guilty of misrepresentation and fraud, is not entitled to the suit claim. The 1st defendant is entitled to receive Rs.74,500/- towards consideration for which he made a counter claim paying court fee and he desired the same to be awarded with interest at 18% p.a., while the suit be dismissed with exemplary costs. The 2nd defendant in his written statement claimed that except that he is the father of the 1st defendant, he has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st defendant’s business or the suit transaction. In the absence of any privity of contract between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, he is not liable for the suit claim. The 2nd defendant claimed costs of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation and reserved his right to take civil and criminal action against the plaintiff. The 3rd defendant in his written statement agreed with the plaintiff concerning his pleas with reference to the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant requested for an early disposal of the suit as their money was locked up. The 5th defendant stated that the plaintiff is responsible for destuffing the container and the 5th defendant has to receive Rs.3,33,370/- from the plaintiff by way of detention charges from 20-11-1995 up to the written statement. The 5th defendant denied the jurisdiction of the Court or any cause of action for the suit. The 6th defendant contended that the suit is not maintainable against it in the absence of a statutory notice under Section 120 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The 6th defendant only discharges its statutory duties and the court has no territorial jurisdiction against the 6th defendant. As the consignments remained in the premises of the 6th defendant without payment of charges, the 6th defendant is entitled to dispose of the goods for non-payment of demurrage charges. The goods were put up for sale under Sections 61 and 62 of the statute, as the consignment was uncleared for two months and the port trust charges accumulated to Rs.16,65,390/- by the date of written statement. The 6th defendant claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief against the 6th defendant. The plaintiff replied to the counter claim of the 1st defendant contending that in the very complaint given by the 1st defendant, the transactions and receiving Rs.2,40,000/- was admitted and their claim is against the documents admittedly executed by the 1st defendant. The rate mentioned in the agreement was not inclusive of cleaning, processing and labour charges. In C.R.P.No.1185 of 1996 also, the 1st defendant admitted receiving Rs.2,40,000/-, which was noted in the order of the High Court dated 11-4-1996. Hence, the plaintiff desired the counter claim to be rejected. On such pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the trial Court. 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.12,33,500/- from defendant Nos.1 and 2? 2) Whether the defendant No.2 (defendant No.1) is entitled for Rs.75,500/- (Rs.74,500/-) as counter claim from the plaintiff? 3) Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are entitled for interest on the claimed amount, if so, at what rate? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief against the defendant Nos.4 to 6 as claimed, if so, the court fee paid is adequate? 5) To what relief? Additional issue framed on 20-09-2001. Whether the defendant No.6 is liable to the suit claim in any way? PW.1 and DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.50, B.1 to B.20 and C.1 to C.8 were marked during trial. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment extensively referring to the rival pleadings, contentions and evidence and noted the admitted facts that the plaintiff is a registered Exporter and Importer and the 3rd defendant placed an order for 17 Metric Tonnes of Okra seeds with the plaintiff. Though the 1st defendant contended that he supplied only 9 Metric Tonnes of seeds, his admissions in his deposition and else where were relied on to conclude that he supplied 17 Metric Tonnes of seeds to the plaintiff, the said seeds were exported and were returned by the Importer as the concerned of the Government Agency of their country found the seeds to be of low germination and to be contaminated with primary and secondary fungus. The trial Court noted that the 1st defendant agreed by a letter Ex.A.19 dated 21- 09-1995 to bear repatriation charges of Rs.60,000/- and at the plaintiff’s instance, the goods landed at Bombay Port accordingly. The Trial Court also noted that the consignment was subsequently not taken delivery as narrated by it and was still lying with the Port Trust. The trial Court, referring to the evidence of PW.1 and his documents, accepted the claims of the plaintiff for the reasons given by it in detail in the impugned judgment and noted that the admissions of DW.1 in Ex.A.43-complaint and Ex.A.44-deposition and Ex.A.45-bill, apart from counter affidavit in I.A.No.211 of 1996 in the suit are admissions of supply of 17 Metric Tonnes of seeds. Ex.A.39-discharge order, Ex.A.40-bills, Ex.A.4-agreement and Ex.A.5-receipt were also relied on, while Ex.A.19 letter agreeing to pay Rs.60,000/- towards repatriation charges was noted to be in the own hand of the 1st defendant, which could not be presumed to be under duress. The absence of reference to Ex.A.19 in Ex.A.41- complaint and Ex.A.50-charge sheet was also referred to. The thumb impressions of the 1st defendant on Exs.A.4 and A.5 were also considered to have been explained and making use of the observations made in Ex.A.46-judgment in C.C.No.134 of 1997 against which no appeal was preferred by the 1st defendant, the trial Court repelled the contentions of the 1st defendant. The non- production of the registers of the 1st defendant was taken adverse note of and the trial Court also found that the evidence of DW.2 shows, read with Ex.A.4 agreement that the samples were given by the 1st defendant for laboratory testing prior to 1-7-1995, which testing appears to have been done on 16-6-1995 even prior to Ex.A.4. The trial Court also rejected the other contentions of the 1st defendant concluding that on facts presumption arises that the 1st defendant must have packed the goods and the inspection of the stock must have been done at the place of the 1st defendant. The trial Court in conclusion felt that the value of the goods at Rs.2,40,000/-, the cost of purchase of cotton cloth at Rs.35,000/-, the cost of gunny bags at Rs.19,307/-, cost of printing and stitching charges at Rs.25,080-50ps., the ocean freight charges at Rs.55,669/- and Rs.17,944/-, export cess of Rs.3,787/- and the repatriation charges of Rs.60,000/- were proved by the plaintiff through the concerned documents. While rejecting the claim of the plaintiff for Rs.50,000/- miscellaneous charges and Rs.71,200/- towards interest, the trial Court also upheld the claim of the plaintiff for damages of Rs.1,20,000/- at 50% of the cost of the goods as per Ex.A.4 agreement as the goods were found defective. The claim for demurrage charges was also negatived and the claim for profits also was rejected. The counter claim of the 1st defendant was also rejected and concerning the claim against the 2nd defendant, the alleged agreement of the 2nd defendant to pay the amount as claimed by the plaintiff was considered ex facie unbelievable. The trial Court also considered it just to award interest at 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs.5,76,787- 50ps. found due from the 1st defendant to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit against the defendants 2 to 6 was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd defendant, while it was decreed against the 1st defendant for the ascertained sum of Rs.5,76,787-50ps. A copy of the decree shows inclusion of no interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and the judgment and decree did not award any costs against the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant preferred the present appeal contending that there was no proof of the very consignment purchased by the 1st defendant being exported and the judgment of the Criminal Court is inadmissible under Section 40 of the Evidence Act. The seeds consigned were treated for disinfestation on 16-6-1995 prior to the purchase from the 1st defendant on 1-7-1995 showing the goods exported to be not goods purchased from the 1st defendant. The plaintiff admitted the purchase of seeds from and payment to Beeyan Seeds in May, 1995 and the plaintiff did not produce phyto sanitary certificate for the goods purchased from the 1st defendant. The damages granted have no evidentiary basis and the conclusions are based on assumptions and presumptions. The letter obtained under threat, coercion and force was relied on and the standard of proof in criminal and civil cases is different. The mere impleading of defendants 2 to 6 shows the malafides of the plaintiff and the counter claim of the 1st defendant had to be upheld as the plaintiff failed to prove any payment beyond Rs.82,750/-. Hence, the appeal. Smt. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mazhar Ali, learned counsel for the 1st respondent are heard. Respondents 2 to 6/defendants 2 to 6 in the suit were stated to be not necessary parties to the appeal. The dismissal of the suit against defendants 2 to 6 with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the 2nd defendant was not challenged by the plaintiff and the same has become final. Similarly, the rejection of the plaintiff’s claims for Rs.50,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses and incidental charges, Rs.2,40,000/- towards detention and port charges etc., Rs.2,95,562/- towards loss of expected of profits and Rs.71,200/- towards interest also was not challenged by the plaintiff and the said conclusions have become final. Though the impugned judgment decided on issue No.3 that the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest from the date of suit till realization over the ascertained amount at 12% p.a., the same was not made part of the result portion of the judgment or the decree and the plaintiff did not take any steps in this regard. The judgment and decree had also not awarded any costs to the plaintiff against the 1st defendant, which also remained unchallenged. The present adjudication is, therefore, confined to the grant of Rs.5,76,787-50 ps. to the plaintiff against the 1st defendant and not granting counter claim of the 1st defendant against the plaintiff (the result portion of the judgment and decree being silent on the counter claim though there was a specific finding about the unsustainability of the counter claim). The point for consideration is, therefore, about the entitlement of the plaintiff to the granted sum against the 1st defendant and the entitlement of the 1st defendant to the counter claim against the plaintiff. Point: Ex.A.4-agreement dated 1-7-1995 between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff referred to the offer to supply 17 Metric Tonnes of seeds as per the samples given by the 1st defendant for laboratory testing, which stipulation in the ordinary and grammatical sense may only be referring to supply of samples by the 1st defendant prior to 1-7-1995, the date of Ex.A.4, as presumed by the trial Court. The preamble to the agreement also specified that the 1st defendant supplied bendi seeds for the purpose of laboratory testing showing the same to be anterior to Ex.A.4. The agreement was specifically for supply of 17 Metric Tonnes of seeds at a cost of Rs.2,40,000/-, which was paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant as per the agreement with Rs.82,750/- being paid earlier and Rs.1,57,250/- being paid under the agreement. The receipt of the entire sale consideration for 17 Metric Tonnes was admitted and acknowledged by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant specifically admitted to supply seeds of quality described in detail in Ex.A.4. Any default by the 1st defendant to complete the transaction within the stipulated period or by supply of seeds of inferior quality due to any technical cause even by the importer, makes the 1st defendant liable not only to pay the amount received, but also costs, charges, incidental expenses for export and 50% of the amount received towards damages. Both the parties signed the agreement in the presence of two witnesses specifying the same to be with their free will and consent without any coercion or duress or undue influence. The signature of the 1st defendant on Ex.A.4 is not in dispute as well as his thumb impression on it and having admitted the same, the circumstances under which he affixed his thumb impression and signature on Ex.A.4 would have to be shown by the 1st defendant for which purpose he did not take any steps to identify or examine either witness to Ex.A.4. Under Ex.A.5 receipt again signed on revenue stamp and affixed with his thumb impression, the 1st defendant acknowledged receipt of Rs.2,40,000/- in total for supply of 17 Metric Tonnes of seeds. Ex.A.5 also had been attested by two witnesses, who were not before the court, while the signature and thumb impression are not disputed. The series of documents filed by the plaintiff about the course of the suit transaction since inception till the end are consistent with the claim in the suit and the evidence of PW.1 and even after Ex.A.27-registered notice, the 1st defendant had only chosen to state in Ex.A.25 reply that his advocate will reply. No such reply was given in spite of subsequent notice under Ex.A.31 and a telegraphic notice under Ex.A.32. Ex.A.41-complaint by the 1st defendant to the police states about the rejection of the consignment sent by the plaintiff, for which he was demanding compensation from the 1st defendant. Ex.A.43-FIR specifically referred to the plaintiff approaching the 1st defendant placing an order to supply 17 Metric Tonnes of seeds, which were supplied and payment of Rs.2,40,000/- also was admitted. The total consideration stated being Rs.3,14,500/- in Ex.A.43, leaving a balance of Rs.74,500/-, it was not explained in the suit and the signatures of the 1st defendant being obtained on stamps dated 1- 7-1995 is also admitted. In Ex.A.44-deposition also the signatures, the supply of 17 Metric Tonnes of seeds, Ex.A.4- agreement, Ex.A.5-receipt etc., were admitted, which admissions were confronted to DW.1 herein. The judgment of the Criminal Court in C.C.No.134 of 1997-Ex.A.46 also makes reference to the same and Ex.A.50 is again a copy of the complaint of the 1st defendant given with similar allegations. Exs.B.1 and B.2, the copies of Exs.C.1 and C.2 do not run counter to the plaintiff’s claim in view of supply of samples to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff prior to Ex.A.4 as recited therein. The independent evidence of DW.2 and Exs.C.1 to C.8 no way improbablise the claim of the plaintiff and the mention in Ex.B.1 that it pertains to 425 jute bags of Okra seeds of 1700 Kgs may be in tune with the recitals in Ex.A.4 about the prior furnishing and testing of samples. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a print out taken from internet from the website of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India about the export inspection and certification. The printout is about an application for export, inspection, sampling, laboratory testing, fumigation, treatment of consignment and issuance or rejection of phyto sanitary certificate. These technical details make no difference to the suit claim as irrespective of compliance with such procedure for export inspection and certification, the probablisation of the rejection and return of 17 Metric Tonnes of seeds supplied by the 1st defendant and the contractual obligations between the parties make the plaintiff sustain his basic claim. DW.4, the Docks Manager of Bombay Port Trust also referred to 425 bags of 1700 Kgs of Okra seeds as stated in Ex.B.1 and he stated about the plaintiff being importer of the goods rejected from Saudi Arabia. While the 2nd defendant, the father of the 1st defendant, is unaware of the whole affair, there is absolutely no independent corroboration to the claims of the 1st defendant as DW.1. The interested evidence of PW.1 and DW.1 has to be tested with reference to the circumstances arising out of the documentary evidence and the pleadings of the other defendants. The 3rd defendant supported the plaintiff’s claim in full in its written statement, while the narration of the events by defendants 4 to 6 and the evidence of DW.4 is in tune with the manner of happening claimed by the plaintiff. DW.1 admitted doing the relevant business and coming to know of PW.1, who approached him for purchase of Okra seeds. His claim of supplying only 8.5 tonnes of seeds is contrary to the allegations about supply of 9 tonnes and he admitted that Ex.A.41 complaint made no mention about the plaintiff obtaining his signatures on blank papers. He also admitted the FIR in Crime No.344 of 1995 and his deposition in C.C.No.134 of 1997 specifying about supply of 17 tonnes of seeds by him to the plaintiff. He had to admit the contents of the documents as true and the contradictions in his claims at different stages. He also admitted that in the counter affidavit in I.A.No.211 of 1996 he stated that he received Rs.2,40,000/- for 17 Metric Tonnes of seeds specifying that Rs.82,750/- was paid through cheque and Rs.1,57,250/- was paid in cash. His claim that he did not give any sample of seeds to the plaintiff is contrary to Ex.A.4 and he admitted not having any record to show that he supplied 8.5 or 9 tonnes of seeds only. He admitted not producing any records or registers relating to his business and he also admitted the plaintiff meeting him after the rejection