IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 431 of 2008 ------------------------ AS.100/1998 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA OS.56/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------ NARAYANAN POTTY N, S/O.NARAYANAN POTTY, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT KIDANGAPPILLY MADOM, POOVATTOOR PADINJARU MURI, KULAKKADA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS --------------------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDINGS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. 2. DEVASWOM BOARD COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDINGS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. 3. ASST. DEVASWOM BOARD COMMISSIONER, KOTTARAKKARA GROUP, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. ASST. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, CHANGANASSERY GROUP, SUMANGALY AUDITORIUM, PUZHAVATH, CHANGANASSERY. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------- R.S.A. No 431 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th June 2008 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S. No 56 of 1997 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara is the appellant, he being aggrieved by the jugment and decree passed by the first appellate court dismissing his appeal upholding the rejection of part of the claim advanced by him in O.S. No 56 of 1997 by the trial court. 2. The suit, O.S. No 56 of 1997 was filed by him for realisation of a total amount of Rs 9,731.67 which takes in an amount of Rs 5,925.67 being arrears of D.A, interest thereon and pay for the month of October 1992; Rs 1,789/- towards earned leave salary and Rs 3,806/- towards interest at 18% per annum for the amounts due as aforesaid. The trial court decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiff is entitled to realise Rs 5,925.67 from the defendants after discharging his liability to the extent of Rs 1,274.34 to the first defendant upholding the contention of the defendants that the amount of Rs 5,925.67 due to the plaintiff was not disbursed to him as he had not discharged the liability of Rs 1,274.34. It is submitted that the total liability was Rs 1,297.34, but the plaintiff remitted Rs 23/- to the credit of the first defendant as according RSA 431/08 2 to him his liability was only so much. There was absolutely no evidence in the case as to how the plaintiff calculated his liability at Rs 23/- and as to how the defendants fixed the liability of the plaintiff at Rs 1,297.34. The plaintiff did not want the first defendant - Devaswom Board or the other defendants to produce the details as to how they fixed the liability due from him at Rs 1,297.34. It is simply by saying that his liability is only Rs 23/- that he deposited Rs 23/- to the credit of the Devaswom Board. It is worthy to note that the amount due to him which was decreed by the courts below was the amount due to him as early as in November 1992. The appellant- plaintiff did not think of depositing Rs 1,274.34 as well and to receive the balance amount leaving the liability to make payment of Rs 1,274.34 to be adjudged later. Even in the present suit he has not resorted to have his liability adjudged by calling for details and pointing out that the liability fixed by the respondents is incorrect. It goes without saying that the amounts due to the plaintiff from the employer can be disbursed to him only after his discharging the liability due to the employer. He could have very well deposited the disputed amount and drawn the balance amount rather than causing the entire amount being held up with the employer Devaswom Board RSA 431/08 3 for such a length of time. Withholding of amounts from being disbursed to the appellant-plaintiff in the absence of either the plaintiff discharging his liability or his requesting for the alleged amount of liability being withheld and the balance being disbursed, the employer could not be found fault with for not disbursing the amount due to the appellant-plaintiff. It was therefore that the contention of the appellant in the appeal claiming balance relief also, was dismissed by the first appellate court. The lower appellate court as also the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit in part and that too after discharging his liability. At best he shall be at liberty to ask the employer Board to withhold the balance liability of Rs 1,274.34 and to disburse the balance amount to him. Option is for the appellant-plaintiff. However, there is no merit in this R.S.A and there is no substantial question of law for consideration by this court in this Second Appeal. In the result, refusing admission I dismiss this R.S.A in limini. Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 17/06/2008 en [true copy]