THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1352 OF 2011 Dated:09.12.2011 Between: Dolam Balaji .. Appellant And Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited, D.No.5-10-195, Faten Maiden Road, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1352 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The first defendant in O.S.N.573 of 2004 filed the instant second appeal against the confirming judgment of the first appellate Court. The first respondent is a Chit Fund Company. They filed the said suit against the appellant herein (hereafter called the first defendant) and the sureties alleging that the appellant entered into a chit agreement dated 07.11.2000; became successful bidder in the auction conducted on 15.09.2002 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to forego an amount of Rs.74,000/- for which defendants 2 to 7 stood as guarantors. It was further alleged that the first defendant committed default in payment of installments and therefore unpaid amount of the chit was adjusted towards the amount deposited by the first defendant and after issuing notice suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,09,186/- . The first defendant admitted being member of the chit and also becoming prize bidder. He further alleged that he deposited Rs.50,000/- in the plaintiff company and gave instructions only to adjust the interest payable on the fixed deposit to two chit transactions, but without giving dividend the plaintiff deducted the amount from out of the deposited amount. The trial Court framed four issues. During trial, the plaintiff examined its Assistant Manager as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A19. The defendants examined two witnesses and no documentary evidence was adduced. After considering the evidence, the trial Court held all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. This Court heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the memorandum of grounds. All the questions raised herein are questions of fact and therefore do not warrant any interference. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 09.12.2011 KH