THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.1922 OF 1993 JUDGMENT: The defendants in O.S.No.88 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada are the appellants herein. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,396.70 ps. being the amount due under a chit transaction. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the 1st defendant joined as a member of the chit in the series IT 5 MP for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on a monthly contribution of Rs.2,000/- per month for 50 months and participated in the bid after 8 installments and became the successful bidder and the other defendants stood as guarantors. The 1st defendant made a total payment of Rs.66,000/- by way of 33 installments and did not pay the remaining installments money. Hence, the suit. The 1st defendant filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the liability and also the defendant being a member of the chit. It was pleaded that the transaction is not valid and enforceable. The defendants 2 to 4 filed a memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.1. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A- 12. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B-1. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for and aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 15.06.1993, all the defendants have preferred the appeal. The point that arises for consideration is whether the defendants are not liable to pay the suit amount? POINT: In the written statement, the defendants have pleaded ignorance of the transaction and also the liability to pay the debt. The transaction is said to be opposed to public policy. As can be seen from the record, the defendant has wanted to file an additional written statement but it was not permitted and this Court also did not permit the defendant to file the additional written statement as can be seen from the orders in C.R.P.No.1874 of 1991. The appellants contend that there was another chit transaction and an amount of Rs.18,000/- has to be paid to the 1st defendant and Ex.B-1 is proving the same and the said amount has to be adjusted and the lower Court has failed to consider the same. Evidently, even assuming to be that the defendant can be permitted to raise this argument, it is to be noted that there is no agreement between the parties that if any other amount is due to the defendant, the amount has to be adjusted towards the suit debt. In the evidence as D.W.1, he stated that the plaintiff agreed to deduct the dividends of Rs.18,000/- covered by Ex.B-1 after the completion of the chit term and that he is liable only for the balance. If really, the defendant has to get any amount as a set-off or a counter-claim the defendant has to pay court fee and agitate the same. In this case, no court fee was paid and there was no written agreement for adjustment and this amount of Rs.18,000/- due under Ex.B-1 chit towards the suit transaction. In the absence of such material, the claim of the appellants cannot be considered. The fact that the defendant committed default after 33 installments is not very seriously disputed. If the chit under Ex.B-1 is discontinued after 12 installments, the rights of the defendants are quite different. Therefore, the amount of Rs.18,000/- is sought to be claimed as adjustment without there being any agreement from the side of the plaintiff and when there is no plea of set-off or counter-claim after payment of the court fee, the appellants are not entitled for the same relief. In fact, the written statement is a total denial of the liability. Therefore, I find that there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed with costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 20-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.1922 OF 1993 Date: 20-10-2011 MR