This second appeal is at the instance of the defendants in O.S.No.314 of 2001 of the court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Sasthamcotta. That is a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money as per a chitty transaction. According to the respondent, she joined the chitty run by the appellants having a sala of `50,000/- and remitted installments upto 09.09.2000, but on 10.09.2000 appellants discontinued the chitty. Respondent demanded payment of the amount due to her but, that was declined. Hence the suit.

¶20

Appellants contended that respondent had joined two chitties having sala of 25,000/- each, she remitted installments upto the 31<sup>**st**</sup> and thereafter, discontinued payment. One chitty was prized by the respondent and she received the amount. In the prized chitty, respondent was to pay 6,250/- to the appellants. In the non-prized chitty, respondent was to get 18,750 **/-** from the appellants. Hence the amount due from the respondent was adjusted in the amount due to the respondent. Respondent is entitled to get a balance sum of 12,500/- alone.

¶21

¶22

RSA No.952/2010

¶23

Respondent gave evidence as PW1 and proved Ext.A1. DW1 gave evidence on behalf of the appellants and proved Ext.B1. Trial court appreciated the evidence and granted a decree as prayed for. The first appellate court has confirmed that decree.

¶24

Learned counsel contended that appreciation of evidence made by the courts below is perverse. According to the learned counsel, Ext.B1 and the evidence of DW1 ought to have been accepted.

¶25

Learned counsel who appeared for the respondent pursuant to the notice issued to the respondent in the application to condone the delay contended that there is a concurrent finding of fact entered by the courts below and hence this appeal involves no substantial question of law for decision by this Court.

¶26

It is seen from the judgment of the courts below that the finding entered by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate was based on the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties. Ext.A1 shows that respondent joined the chitty run by the appellants. Though appellants have a contention that respondent had joined two chitties, one was prized and the other was not prized, there is no evidence except what DW1 said and stated in Ext.B1, chitty register. Trial and first appellate courts held that Ext.B1 cannot be accepted because it is a self serving document. In otherwords, it is based on the evidence on record that the trial court has granted decree in favour of the respondent and that was confirmed by the first appellate court.

¶27

¶28

RSA No.952/2010

¶29

On hearing learned counsel and going through the judgments under challenge I find no substantial question of law requiring admission of the Second Appeal.

¶30

Second Appeal is dismissed.

¶31

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶32

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶33

cks

Ambika Kumari and Another v. Usha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ambika Kumari and Another v. Usha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raichel Raju Vs Hilari

George Vs George

Suresh Vs Antony

M.G.Vinodan Vs Anitha Suresh

Krishnan & Others Vs Thankappan

C.H.Subair Vs C.H.Abdul Razak and Others