The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by legal heirs of a deceased debtor. The court held that a company director could file the suit without a resolution, electronic evidence was acceptable, and the decree correctly targeted the estate of the deceased.
The second appeal was dismissed; the decree in favour of the respondent was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931
RSA.No. 347 of 2009()
AS.117/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.703/2003 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT - I, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS.
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.
ACE AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KRISHNANAND KAMATH, S/O. LEELADHAR KAMATH, KACHERY AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
R.S.A.No.347 of 2009
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Defendants in O.S.No.703 of 2003 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff-I, Kozhikode are the appellants before me. They challenge the concurrent findings entered by the courts below that their predecessor-ininterest, late Shri V.V.Premadathan owed to the respondent Rs.17,993.30 and the decree for recovery of the amount.
RSA No.347/2009
2
claimed by the respondent. They also denied that there was notice to the said Premadathan as pleaded by the respondent. In the trial court, director of respondent gave evidence as PW1 and proved Exts.A1 to A6 series. First appellant gave evidence as DW1 and proved Exts.B1 and B2. Trial court found that the sum of Rs.17,933.30 is due from the estate of deceased Premadathan to the respondent and accordingly a decree was passed. Appellate court concurred with that finding. In this Second Appeal, the substantial questions of law attempted to be raised are:
i. Whether one of the directors of the respondent company had authority to file suit on behalf of the company in the absence of a resolution?
ii. Whether statement of accounts which is not properly verified in accordance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act can be accepted in evidence?
iii. Whether the decree in favour of respondent when the appellants specifically claimed that they are not legal representatives is valid?
RSA No.347/2009
3
capable of giving evidence. That satisfies the requirement of Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code. (Though trial court wrongly refers to Order 30 of the Code, it is Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code which apply to the facts of the case).
RSA No.347/2009
4
of the amount from the estate of deceased Premadathan if any inherited by the appellants. Question whether there is any property inherited by the appellants from the late Premadathan to be proceeded against for realisation of the amount is a matter to be decided in the execution. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned counsel I am satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved.
Resultantly, this Second Appeal fails. It is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a director of a private company has authority to file a suit without a specific resolution under Order 29 Rule 1 CPC.
Whether an electronic statement of account under Section 65B of the Evidence Act can be accepted as evidence when not formally certified.
Whether a decree against legal heirs is valid without first deciding whether they inherited any property.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mallika and Others
Ace Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Thomas P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
