THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.1269 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st respondent is a chit fund company. The appellant is the prized subscriber of a chit. Alleging that the appellant received the chit amount and repaid part of it, but committed default in payment of the balance, the 1st respondent filed O.S.No.86 of 1999 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. Respondents 2 and 3 are the sureties. The appellant filed a written statement, opposing the suit. He admitted the fact that he is a prized subscriber and that he was paid the chit amount. He, however, pleaded that he repaid the entire amount in the stipulated instalments. Through judgment, dated 30.01.2004, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed A.S.No.8 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. The appeal was dismissed on 30.12.2006. Hence, this second appeal. Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that though the appellant admitted the factum of his being a prized subscriber, has raised several grounds of fact and law and the Courts below did not appreciate the same from the correct perspective. He contends that even if the appellant failed to prove the discharge of the amount, important fact, viz., that the 1st respondent was not registered as required under law, ought to have been taken into account. He further submits that the person, who transacted the chit, viz., the foreman, was not made as a party, much less he was examined as a witness and that would be fatal to the suit filed by the 1st respondent. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration, on the basis of the pleadings before it: i) “Whether the defendant did not receive the bid amount? ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for?” The Managing Partner of the 1st respondent was deposed as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were filed. The appellant alone was deposed as DW.1 and no documentary evidence was adduced. The suit was decreed and in the appeal preferred by the appellant, the lower Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: i) “Whether the plaintiff paid the prize amount to the 1st defendant as claimed by it? ii) Whether the 1st defendant paid the amount up to 25th instalment of the chit? iii) Whether the suit chit and bye laws are registered? iv) Whether the suit is maintainable by the person who signed the plaint? v) Whether the decree and judgment of the trial Court are liable to be set aside?” All the points were answered against the appellant. The appellant did not dispute that he was a prized subscriber and received the chit amount. He, however, pleaded that he discharged the debt. It was elicited through him that whenever the 1st respondent received any payment from him, they have issued receipts. Once that is so, he ought to have filed receipts covering the amount. It is no doubt true that the failure of a chit fund company to get registered under the relevant provisions of law is an important factor. The necessity or occasion for the Courts to deal with that issue would have arisen, if only the objection in that regard was raised in the written statement and an issue was framed. Admittedly, the appellant did not raise that issue in the written statement. So is the case with the plea as to failure to implead the foreman. The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have discussed the oral and documentary evidence correctly and arrived at proper conclusions. Admission by the appellant that he is the subscriber and that he did not possess the receipts for discharge of the amount, were sufficient to decree the suit. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:04.08.2011 GJ