IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 AS.No. 469 of 2001(D) --------------------- OS.285/1993 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS) -------------------------------- 1. SASI JOHN, PAVOORETHU PUTHEN VEEDU, CHERUKOLE, CHENNITHALA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAJI MAMMEN, S/O. IDIKKULA P. THOMAS, PAVOOREATHU VILLA, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. ANNAMMA JOHN, PAVOOREATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, CHERUKOLE, CHENNITHALA,REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAJI MAMMEN, S/O. IDIKKULA P. THOMAS, PAVOOREATHU VILLA, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------------ CHINNA CHACKI MATHAI, MANNIL HOUSE, PADINJATTUSSERI MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.10.2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. ====================== A.S. No.469 of 2001 ====================== Dated, this the 19th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT The defendants who suffered a decree for money at the hands of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara are the appellants. The facts and parties are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court. 2. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff was taken as a housemaid to the place of employment of the first defendant promising payment of 600 Dirhams per month as monthly salary. The plaintiff would say that this was in addition to the free food and clothing and other daily expenses. She went on 17.05.1990 and returned on 29.06.1992. She used to be paid small amounts by the defendants which she used to send home. She would say that at the time when she returned home certain articles purchased by the defendants were handed over to him. After deducting the value of the articles so purchased towards the arrears of salary, an amount of ` 1,04,230/- was due. The suit was filed for the said amount. 3. The defendants resisted the suit. They pointed out that the exchange rate stated by the plaintiff is incorrect. They A.S. No. 469/2001 -:2:- pointed out that the entire salary has been paid to the plaintiff and nothing was due from them. The arrangement at the time when she was taken to the place of employment was that the clothing expenses had to be met by her. At the time of deputation she had agreed before the Emigration Officer that she had received arrears due to her. In the light of these facts, according to the defendants, there was no basis for the allegations made in the plaint. They, therefore, pray for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the issues were raised by the trial court. The evidence consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the plaintiff and Exts. B1 and B1(a) were marked on the side of the defendants. The trial court found that after deducting the value of the article which she was given at the time when the plaintiff left the place of employment, an amount of `47,900/- was due towards the salary. It was also took into account the salary received by the plaintiff. The decree was, accordingly, given for the said amount. It is the said judgment and decree which is assailed in this appeal. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is A.S. No. 469/2001 -:3:- whether any interference is called for in the said judgment and decree. 6. Certain facts were admitted. The plaintiff was taken abroad to the place of employment of the defendants promising to pay an amount of 600 Dirhams as monthly salary. There is some dispute regarding the expenses regarding the clothing alone. The plaintiff would say that it had to be met by the defendants. The defendants would say otherwise. The lower court came to the conclusion that probably, no separate expenses for clothing might have been agreed to be met by the defendants. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that there are no dues to the plaintiff in the light of Ext.B1(a) which contains the signature of the plaintiff. That was a document executed at the time of deportation in the migration office which mentions that the entire dues has been paid. In the light of this document, there was no basis for the lower court to conclude that arrears of salary were due from the defendants. 8. It is an admitted fact that the salary that was promised to be paid was 600 Dirhams. It is for the defendants to show that they have paid the salary as promised by them. The plaintiff has A.S. No. 469/2001 -:4:- produced Ext.A1 relating to the account maintained by her husband to show the amounts she had sent from the place of her employment to her husband. There was dispute regarding the two entries in the pass book. That related to an amount of `10,000/- and ` 3,750/-. Even though the defendants contended that those related to the salary paid to the plaintiff, plaintiff was able to show that it is not so and explain the circumstances under which those amounts came to be credited to the account of her husband. She had sold two of the articles brought from the place of employment and those amounts were the sale price of those articles. The court below accepted her explanation. 9. Based on Ext.B1(a), it is too difficult to come to the conclusion that the entire salary has been paid to the plaintiff. It is also significant to notice that the defendants have not chosen to go into the box and vindicate their stand. The result is that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff stands uncontroverted. The court below has accepted the plea of the defendants that the exchange rate was `5 per Dirham at the relevant date and has calculated the salary due to the plaintiff on that basis. The lower court after deducting the amounts paid to her and also the value of the articles which she brought home and bought by the A.S. No. 469/2001 -:5:- defendants when she returned home, found the balance amount due was `47,900/- The conclusion drawn by the court below does not call for any interference and as already stated the burden was on the defendants to prove that they had paid the salary as promised by them. There is no such evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, they cannot say that the court below has erred in arriving the conclusion that an amount of `47,900/- was due to the plaintiff. It could not be stated that the findings of the court below are perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record. The result is that the appeal lacks merit and it is liable to be dismissed. I do so. There will be no order as to costs. sd/- P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. rv /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. A.S. No. 469/2001 -:6:- P. BHAVADASAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- A.S.No. 469 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT