IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No 1197 of 1979 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- BALMUKUND R DAVE Versus NADIAD MINUCIPALITY -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. First Appeal No. 1197 of 1979 MR RN SHAH for Petitioner No. 1-4 MR MC SHAH for Respondent No. 1-2 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL Date of decision: 22/01/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. This appeal by the original defendants nos.1, 2, 5 & 6 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th October, 1978 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadiad in Special Civil Suit no.117/1971 whereby the learned Judge decreed the said suit for Rs.12,145/- with cost and running interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the payment or realisation in favour of the respondents nos.1 and 2, who are original plaintiffs, and against the appellants and respondent no.3 who are the original defendants. 2. Defendants were the Trustees of the R.J. Dave Adarsh Kelvani Trust and were running a Primary School in Nadiad. They were paid grants in the year 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 which came to Rs.12,145/-. The suit was filed by the Nadiad Municipality and the Chairman of the Municipal School Board, Nadiad alleging that when Joint enquiry of accounts regarding income and expenditure of the school was carried out by the Education Inspector of Kaira District it was revealed that there were several irregularities in the accounts and in particular, though the tution fees was charged at Rs.5/- per student, only Rs.1/- per month per student was shown as income of fee. It was disclosed in the inquiry that even though defendants were receiving Rs.5/- per month per student as tution fees, they were showing tution fee at Rs.1/- only and Rs.2/- were shown as refreshment fee and Rs.2/- were shown as fees for English. According to the plaintiffs the defendants did not incur any deficit, but since no grant was to be paid to the Private Primary School which was making profits, the defendants had intentionally suppressed the income of the fees only with a view to obtaining grant from the defendants. When the fraud was discovered the plaintiffs filed the suit to recover the sum of Rs.12,145/-. The defendants in their written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint. According to them since they had filed a suit against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had filed the present suit as a counterblast. The learned Trial Judge, at the end of the trial, came to the conclusion that grant was to be paid to the school only if the school was in deficit and the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the plaint against the defendants were proved. He also held that the order dated 5th January, 1970 passed by the Education Inspector of Kaira District to recover the amount of grant was not illegal and against the rules of natural Justice as contended by the defendants. He also held that the suit was not barred by limitation. In view of these findings, he decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs as stated above. The appellants have, therefore, filed the first appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken me through the judgment and evidence on record. The learned Judge has recorded the findings after appreciation of the entire evidence on record and it is not shown that the findings are in any way erroneous. There is no reason to interfere with the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. There is no substance in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. [M.C. PATEL, J.] /phalguni/