Allowed

Miss P.Suhar Latha v. Sri Robert W Long

Telangana HC10 Oct 2022CCCA/205/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 96 CPC against a monetary decree, the High Court allowed the appeal as the trial court erred in decreeing recovery without sufficient evidence from the plaintiff regarding the purpose of payment, finding a lack of evidence to assess his version.

What did the court decide?

The City Civil Court Appeal allowed; O.S.No.535 of 2009 set aside and dismissed; no order as to costs.

Miss P.Suhar Latha Vs Sri Robert W Long — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

crw crvtL cou RT APPEAL NO: 205 OF 2016

¶7

Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated O2-O4-2O14 made in O.S.No.535 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the lll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:^-

¶9

Business, Fl/o Miss P.Suhar H.No.1-1-530, Latha, D/o Sri Flat P.S.Dhanaraj, No.A-1 ,5'11 Aged about floor, lndian Bank 38^years, EmployeeOcc: Flats, Bakaram, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad 500 080.

¶10

AND

¶11

...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶12

Sri Robert W Long, S/o Late Sri Richard Long. Aged about 63 years, Occ: Service, FVo Flat No.1706, W. ALBION # 3 E CHICAGO, State U.S.A., Rep. by his GPA Holder, Smt. Jennifer Francis Wo Sri. S. Francis, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Housewife. R/o H. No.8-3-228l503, Rehamathnagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-SO0 045.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CCCAMP. NO: 574 OF-2016)

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased stay the operation of the common Judgment and decree dated 02.04.2014 passed in OS No.535 of 2009 on the file of lll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad pending disposal of the appeal.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K. BUCHI BABU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI M. V. R. SURESH

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

¶20

THE FION'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.Lr\XNiltlii

¶21

CITY C ll'r/Il, COURT APPEAL No.2O5; Ot :)(.)lb

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This app :al is arising out of the Common^.l -rr1gn ent and Decree dated ):2.04.2014 in O.S.No.535 of^')O(J() :r:rd OS.No.6 of 2O 1 1 on th, {ile of the III Additional Chi,:f .h r<191e,^(lity Civil Court, Hyden bad, wherein and whereby the s1r.t filed by the respondent t erein ie., OS.No.535 of 2O09 f{): re( overy of Rs. 1O,44,275 '- was decreed granting interes;t rrt th:' ratc of 9ok per annu rl from the date of filing of the srrir ti.l rcalization rvith costs ar rl dismissed other suit ie., OSl.No^(r of ! 0I I filed by the app dlant herein. Aggrieved try r L e sirme, the defendant in OS.No.535 of 2OO9 filed the pres,e:rl ,ep1,eal.

¶24

The a rpellant herein is the dr:ferrierrt and the respondent lrt:rein is the plaintiff in OS.No.S,i 5 ,.rl 2009. For the sake of < rrnvenience, the parties hereinaf r r are^-eferred to as they are i rrayed in OS.No.535 of 2OO9.

¶25

The sr rn and substance of the case ot' rhe rlaintiff is that the pla rrtiff is the resident of USA ani lte ha,l seen the advertiseme rt in the Deccan Chronicle Dzril-r'^''J,:r,..sp rper dated

¶26

¶27

¶28

15.06.2008 which appeared in America twice in a week and he contacted the defendant for marriage alliance to his nephew. Out of the said acquaintance, there u,as frequent interaction in between them. Taking into consideration of such acquaintance, the defendant requested to send money for investing in real estate business. Beiieving the words of the defendant, the plaintiff transferred amounts and subsequently, he found that no property rvas purchased by the defendant and later, the defendant paid Rs.2,00,000/-. Further amounts were not paid inspite of demands. Hence, filed the present suit.

¶29

The defendant filed her written statement by admitting the suit amount of Rs. I 1,54,257 /- and she also admitted the payment of Rs.2,0O,OOO/- to the plaintiff. She denied that there was a proposal to marry the plaintiff's nepherv and in fact, the plaintiff himself wanted to marry the defendar-rt out of which there were frequent communication betneen them. Out of such acquaintance, the plaintiff instructed her to renovate the house of his friend. As per his instructions, the defendant carried out renovation u,ork to H.No.6-3-198, situated at Prem Nagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. According to

the defendant, a total amount of^Rs. 14,37,7t)6,/^{'vas incurred} for renovation rvork and the plaintiff is still^r€ql-ure(: to^pay Rs.2,83,539/- zLnd she also filed suit in OS.No il^,:f llo1i for recovery of tht said amount.

¶34

The defe ndant preferred the present :rppeal ag€jnst the suit of the p aintiff and there is no appea,l :rs; against the dismissal of tl e defendant's suit.

¶35

Basing r n the above pleadings, the follovnng issres have beerr framed I y the trial Court:

¶36

Whel her the plaintiff No. I is entitlecl f,rr re:overy of the suit amount as prayed for

¶37

To u :rat relieP

¶38

To pror ,: the case of the plaintiff, P.W.l^.vr:ts ,rxamined and Exs.A-l lrr A-B are marked. DWs 1to li vzere^,:xamined on behalf of he defendant and Exs.B1 to 851 clocurnents are marked thror rglh DWi

¶39

The tr al Court, after appreciating the evi,lence on record, foun I that the requirement for claimirLg thr amount has been sal isfied by the plaintiff, and accorrlingly^(rS.No.535 of 2009 wa: decreed and OS.No.6 of 20 I I vras <lismissed.

¶40

¶41

Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree in os.No.535 of { 2009, the present appeal has been filed by the defendant.

¶42

9. Heard both sides

¶43

The following points emerge for consideration in this appeal:

¶44

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount?

¶45

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for non-examination of the plaintiff.

¶46

Point Nos. I and 2:

¶47

The facts which are not in dispute are that the plaintiff and defendant are having good acquaintance. There is also no dispute with regard to that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.11,54,257/- to the defendant. The only dispute.between the parties is that, according to the plaintiff the amount^was paid for purchase of property in Hyderabqd.^{The case of the} defendant is that the amount^{was paid for renovationof the} house of the plaintiffs^{relatives' The evidenceproduced by the} plaintiff shows that the amounts^{are paid to the defendants'} The plaintiff examined^{GPA holder and the plaintiff has not}

-...

\ \

r.,

entered^{into w t'nessbox' The defendant examitrerlDWs 1 to 3} and relied^{up :n Exs.B 1 to 851 'The entirelocu lentary} evidence^{of th' defendantshows that she has donr: somecivil} work to the^{1r-rilding in Premnagar,Khairtabad} '^{Hy lerabad'} DW3 is the^{u ife of Dcruz who is the owner of tae: altove said} property. D'V3 evidence shows^{that she is ttLe co-sister of} plaintiffs sis er Jessica and the same is not disputed-

¶53

Now tl e question is whether the amourrt paid by the plaintilT to tl e defendant is for the purpose c,f lrurclase of the propertv or I ot?

¶54

The pl Lintiff alone knows for what purporle th: amounts are paid to he defendant. The said fact is u,ir-hin ,he special knorvledge , f the plaintiff alone. The plaintiff has rrot entered into the u,il ress box and only the GpA holcler is examined as PWl. The ( PA holder can depose only irr resl)ect ,rf the facts which are i r his special knowledge. It is not the case of the plaintiff th rr the GpA holder was involve<I although the transaction between the plaintiff and the cLefen,jant. The evidence ol IrW t is not helpful to substantiate the claim set up bY the rtaintiff. It is the plaintiff ajone q&o raX depose

¶55

¶56

¶57

that the amount is paid to the defendant was for the prr.po".^{ of purchase of property and not for the purpose of renovation as set up by the defendant. Such evidence is lacking before this court. The court below has not justified in decreeing the suit on the basis of tralsfer of amount to the defendant. Therefore, the findings of the trial court in ordering the recovery of amount suffer from perversity. Hence, the said findings require to be set aside.

¶58

Pgint No.3:

¶59

In the rcsult, the appeal is allowed setting aside the Judgment ald Decree dated 02.04.2014 io OS.No.535 of 2009 and consequently, OS.No.535 of 2009 is dismissed. No order as to costs

¶60

The Miscellaneous^{petitions pending if any shall stand}

¶61

closed.

¶62

, sDtB.s.?[ts3[JrF:i{ / / /[RUE^COPY//

¶63

SECTION^OFFICER

¶64

\ I I

¶65

Hyderabad.^{(withrecords)} cl ucl " i Hi't€.d il"fl tx"l:'*l:{r"1Y#!36[

¶66

4 Two^{CD CoPies}

¶67

One^SPareCoPY gbr q

: ",--_'--.---

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^10/10t',2022

JUDGMENT

CCCA.No.20 5 of²⁰¹⁶

-- .z .l- "-. :-...
./ '. ,i ',\ri ...,: .
/'. ':
L',:'.
t1-j
1q 'i\ ?[rL t
t.. .'-
: ':-< .l
'.),

¶74

ALLOWING THE CCCA WITHOUT C OSTS (Q^copia b--\8ttur-

¶75

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶76

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶77

IVONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶78

PRESENT

¶79

THE HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE. M.LAXMAN

¶80

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 20s OF 2016

¶81

Between:

¶82

Miss P.Suhar Latha, D/o Sri P.S.Dhanaraj, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, Fyo H.No.1-1-530, Ftat No.A-1, 5'11 floor, lndian Bank Employee Flats, Bakaram, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad 500 080.

¶83

...APPELLANT/DEFEN DANT

¶84

AND

¶85

Sri Robert W Long, S/o Late Sri Richard Long. Aged about 63^years, Occ: Service, Rt/o Ftat No.1706, W. ALBION # 3 E CHICAGO, State U.S.A., Rep. by his GPA Holder, Smt. Jennifer Francis W/o Sri. S. Francis, Aged about 38^years, Occ: Housewife. R/o H.No.8-3-2281503, Rehamathnagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500 045

¶86

...RESPONDENTiPLAINTIFF

¶87

Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree of the Court of the lll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.535 of 2009 dated 02-042014.

¶88

This app€al coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Buchi Babu, Advocate for the Appellant and'of Sri M.V.R. Suresh, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶89

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶90

That the City Civil Court Appeal be and hereby is allowed setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 02.04.2014 in O.S.No.535 of 2009 on the file of the lll^Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and consequently, O-S.No.535 of^{2009 be} and hereby is dismissed; and

¶91

That there be no order as to costs in this CCCA.

¶92

//TRUE COPY//

¶93

SD/.B,S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTi.AR L/./

¶94

SECTION OFFICER

¶95

To,

¶96

1 . The lll Additional^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad'}

¶97

Two CD Copies

¶98

One Spare^CoPY

gbr

, cr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1011( 12022

DECREE

CCCA.No.2( 5 of 2016

ALLOWING THE CCCA WITHOUT⁽ }OSTS

¶107

6Q^c"vd 5.o6Y

Miss P.Suhar Latha v. Sri Robert W Long

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss P.Suhar Latha v. Sri Robert W Long

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramesh Gandhi Vs Smt. R. Swathi

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. P.Anuradha and 2 Others

M Agro Exports, Guntur Dist Vs B Kalyani, R.R.Dist and Others

Dt.Collector Mhabubnagar Vs R.Ramakrishna Reddy

Nagubandi Pullaiah Vs Maduri Srinivasa Rao

Nannapaneni Rama Rao Vs Smt. Nannapaneni Soubhagyamma