THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal Nos.295 & 319 of 2009 (Common Judgment) Dt:03-08-2010 Between : R. Thimmaraju and others ..Appellants And Shriram Chits Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Kadapa .. Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty Counsel for respondent : Sri Kuncham Maheswara Rao < GIST >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal Nos. 295 & 319 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two Second Appeals arise out of O.S.No.379 of 2002 filed by the sole respondent herein, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. The respondent filed the suit against the petitioners herein for recovery of Rs.70,621/- on the strength of a chit transaction. The 1st appellant is the prised subscriber of a chit with the respondent and appellants 2, 3 and 4 are the sureties. The trial Court decreed the suit in part, through judgment dated 24-06-2004, directing that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.48,621/-. The appellants filed A.S.No.63 of 2004, and the respondent filed A.S.No.92 of 2004 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Through common judgment dated 29-08-2008, the lower Appellate Court dismissed A.S.No.63 of 2004 and allowed A.S.No.92 of 2004. The result was that the suit came to be decreed, as prayed for, for a sum of Rs.70,621/-. Hence these two second appeals. Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court partly decreed the suit, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the respondent himself, and as a matter of fact, the suit was liable to be dismissed, since the correct facts were not presented. He contends that the lower Appellate Court has deviated from the evidence on record and went to the extent of doubting the evidence adduced by the respondent itself. He submits that the lower Appellate Court was not even firm in its opinion, and simply by expressing doubt about the payment of installments, decreed the suit, as prayed for. Sri Kunchan Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the relationship between the organization, running the chits, on the one hand, and the subscribers of the chits, on the other, are governed by the provisions of the A.P. Chit Fund Act, 1971, and the lower Appellate Court has taken that into account, in determining the liability of the appellants. He contends that there was no denial of the fact that the 1st appellant is a priced subscriber, and the amounts paid by him were borne out by record. The suit was filed for recovery of the amount due under a priced chit. The appellants pleaded that several deductions were made, and rate of interest was changed. According to them, they are liable to pay only Rs.35,270/-, and not Rs.70,621/-, as claimed. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the part payments pleaded and discharged by defendant No.1 is true and binding on the plaintiff ? 2) Whether the calculation memo filed by the defendant No.1 is correct ? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim ? On behalf of the respondent, PW-1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were filed. The 1st appellant deposed as DW-1, and no documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf. The trial Court took into account, the plea of the appellants, that as against a sum of Rs.38,590/- paid by them, only Rs.16,590/- was deducted and there is a difference of Rs.22,000/-. By referring to the relevant record, the trial Court found the plea of the appellants to be correct and decreed the suit, partly, for a sum of Rs.48,621/-. The appellants, on the one hand, and the respondent, on the other hand, filed appeals against the decree of the trial Court. Only one point was framed for consideration, viz., whether the calculation shown in Ex.A-9 is clear and certain or not ? A finding was recorded to the effect that Ex.A-9 does not represent the correct facts, and accordingly the suit was decreed in its entirety. The Second Appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the lower Appellate Court, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The sole basis for the judgment rendered by the lower Appellate Court is the interpretation placed by it, upon Ex.A-3. Therefore, an important question of law arises, viz., whether a Civil Court can disbelieve the evidence adduced by a plaintiff himself, and give the benefit thereof to the plaintiff, detrimental to the interests of the defendant ? The appellants did not deny the existence of a chit transaction with the respondent. They have also admitted that some amount was still to be paid towards installments. The only dispute was, about the amount that is due. Ex.A-9 is the ledger extract. Though the appellants pleaded that some of the installments paid by them were not reflected in it, the trial Court did not accept that contention. Ex.A-9 itself reflected that the appellants paid 11 installments of Rs.2,000/- each. That amount comes to Rs.22,000/-. However, the same was not taken into account and the suit was filed as though, nothing was paid. PW-1 categorically admitted that the appellants paid 11 installments of Rs.2,000/- each, and the same was not taken into account; by filing the suit. At the same time, the appellants did not establish that they have paid any amount, over and above what was contained in Ex.A-9. The trial Court discussed the aspects, referred to above, and has given credit to the amount of Rs.22,000/-, while decreeing the suit. The lower Appellate Court, however, has gone to the extent of disbelieving Ex.A-9 itself. No reference was made to the admissions made by PW-1, and the suit was decreed, as prayed for. This Court is of the view that the judgment rendered by the lower Appellate Court is perverse, in nature, and the findings are not borne out by record. Hence, the Second appeals are allowed. The result is that the decree passed by the trial Court shall stand upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-08-2010. KO