Dismissed

B.Laxmipathi v. M.Murali

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025AS/2690/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant appealed against a money recovery decree holding him liable for Rs.78,181 with interest, contending repayment via Ex.B-1 and absence of money lending licence. The court found the transaction was between business entities and the defence unsupported, and dismissed the appeal without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

B.Laxmipathi Vs M.Murali — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

I t i ! i ': ; I lI I i

¶3

; ! I JI t I II

¶4

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶8

APPEAL SUIT NO. 2690 OF {999

¶9

Appeal U/s 96 of C.P.6 against the Judgment and^{Decree made in} O.S.No.144 of 1993 dated 19.07.1999 on the file of the^{SeniorCivilJudge,} Nizamabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Bondugula Laxmipathi S/o Balram^{Prop.M/s Raja Traders, Nizamabadpresently} residing at Kamareddy

¶12

...A''ELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶13

AND

¶14

M.Murali, S/o Laxmaiah, Prop.of lVl/s MuraliTraders,^{Nizamabad R/o New Gunj,} Namdevwada, Nizamabad

¶15

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶16

C.M.P.NO: 772 0F 1999

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit fited in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} grant stay of all further proceedings including execution of decree^{in O.S.No.144} of 1993 on the file of the Senior Civil^{Judge, Nizamabad of 19-7-1999.}

¶18

Counsel for the Appeltant : Ms.YOGITA^{PRAKASH REP.SRI. M.PAPA REDDY} Counsel for the Respondent : SRIJ.VENKATESWARA^REDDYISRI G.R.PRATAP REDDY (NOT PRESENT)

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

..f$'

¶21

I I i i : I

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI Aooeal Suit N0.2690 OF 1999

¶23

GMENT:

¶24

Heard Ms. Yogita Prakash, learned counsel, representing Mr.M. Papa Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellant.

¶25

This appeal is directed against the decree and Judgment, dated 19.07.1999 in O.S.No.144 of 1993 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

¶26

The appellant is the defendant (hereafter 'the defendant') and the suit was filed for recovery of money of Rs.99,928/- with future interest @ 12o/o per annum from 0'l . 1 0.1993 till realization.

¶27

The trial Court after analyzing the evidence, decreed the suit^{yrde judgment,} dated 19.07.1999 for a sum of Rs.78,181/with future interest @ 12o/o per annum on the principal sum of Rs.60,246i- from the date of suit till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred this appeal.

¶28

ln appeal, learned counsel for the defendant would contest the impugned Judgment on two grounds. Firstly, the trial Court

¶29

¶30

NTR,J 4.5.No.2690 1999

¶31

erred in properry appreciating the receipuEx.Bl and the preading of the defendant that the suit claim has been repaid prior to filing of the suit. secondty, the transaction fails within the scope of money rending business and in the absence.of money rending licence, the suit claim shall fails.

¶32

ln spite of proper notice, none appeared for respondenUplai ntiff (hereafter,the p la i ntiff, )

¶33

I have perused the materiar and carefuily considered the submissions of the tearned counser for the defendant.

¶34

At the outset, the defendant has not disputed the suit transaction. The orat evidence of p.w.1 coupred with day Book extract, ledger extract, and the admission of defendant as D.w.1 the suit claimed transaction shall be taken as estabtished.

¶35

9 The defence of the defendant is that the suit amount was repaid under Ex.B-1

¶36

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff and his brothers are running the business and his brother being the Kartha of the family, received the dues from the defendant against the transactions made by the plaintiff.

¶37

¶38

NTR,J A.S:.No.2690 1999

I ! !

,/,

As per the plaintiff, the proprietary concern in name and style of M/s. Murali Traders transacted with the defendant. The defendant though contested that the plaintiff is a joint family concern, except pleading and self serving sta'tement in his oral evidence, no material has been brought on record to accept much less to conclude this fact

¶44

Be that as it may, a perusal of Ex.B1 indicating that on 06.04.199'l one Bala Krishnaiah received a sum of Rs.1,74,7381 in total under two heads by mentioning that amount due from larger traders to medium traders is Rs.1,30,8281 and amount due from Sri Pandu Ranga proprietors to Murali Traders is Rs.43,920/-. Further, except the statement of D.Ws.1 and 2 that these amounts are paid against the suit dues, nothing on record to show that these amounts were paid towards the suit claim. That apart, when the entire suit claim is of Rs.99,628/- including interest, why defendant would pay Rs.1,30,828/- against the suit dues is left unexplained. This mismatch is worsening the defence raised by the defendant. Furthermore, if the amounts paid are towards the suit dues, the defendant could have examined the brother of II

¶45

¶46

NTN"I A.5.No.2690 1999

¶47

plaintiff to whom the amount said to have been paid. For the reasons best known, the defendant remained silent during the trial proceedings. ln that position inevitable conclusion should be against the defendant's pleading

¶48

ln regard to money lending licence, it is to be noted that neither in the reply notice nor in the written statement, the defendant has pleaded that the transaction was part of money lending business of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plea of the plaintiff that during the course of their business between the business concern and to support the business of the defendant, the moneys were advanced and the goods were given on credit basis remaining uncontraverted. ln that view, the transaction shall be considered as one between the business entities.

¶49

Further, Section 2(4) of the Money Lenders Act is considered the proviso specifies that the transactions between the firms in their ordinary course of business would not amount to money lender transaction. In this statutory position, the contention of the defendant that the transaction requires money lenders licence falls flat.

¶50

¶51

¶52

NTR,J A.5.No.2690 l,999

¶53

\ .ll

¶54

The trial Court having regard to these aspects concluded

¶55

that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. on re-appreciation, even this court finds no tenable ground or impropriety in the findings recorded in the impugned judgment rn effect, this

¶56

appeal is failing on merit and accordingly dismissed No costs.

¶57

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, stands

¶58

closed.

¶59

/,TRUE^COPY"

¶60

sd/- P.^c NAGABHUSHAMBA i PUTY REGISTRAR .r'' .l-^? \ :SECTION OFFICER

¶61

To, 1. Tlre^{Senior Civil Judge'lrlizamabad'(With Records)} 2. One^{CC to Sri M'P;p; Reddy'-Advoiate (OPUC)} 3 orre cc^{to sri i]ri.?i'r.liJii!?'n"aov, Rdro"ate (oPUc)} 4 one cc^{to sri th iJ;;i;i'iGoov} '^{Advocate (oPUC)}

¶62

Two^{CD CoPies} Ks/gh

¶63

Qr^q,

¶64

:... :

¶65

::i :' ' -: -::

,r /f1,I

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/0212025

JUDGMENT

A.S.No.2690 of l^ggg

STArE
<br>o
,J I i ';.1\i ?$15

r;

¶72

Dismissing the Appeal Suit Without costs.

¶73

c( ,at+\r-f

¶74

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA . AT HYDERABAD

¶75

WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶76

PRESENT

¶77

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶78

APPEAL SUIT NO. 2690 OF¹⁹⁹⁹

¶79

Between:

¶80

Bondugula Laxmipathi S/o Balram^{Prop.M/s RajaTraders, Nizamabadpresently} residing at Kamareddy

¶81

...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶82

AND

¶83

M.Murali, S/o Laxmaiah, Prop.of^{M/s tt/urali Traders, NizamabadR/o NewGunj,} Namdevwada, Nizamabad

¶84

.. RESPON DENT/PLAI NTI^{F F}

¶85

Appeal U/s 96 of C.P.C against the^{Judgmentand Decree madein} O.S.No.144 of 1993 dated 19.07.1999 on^{the file of the Senior Civit.luOgl,} Nizamabad.

¶86

ORDER : This appeal 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 Ms.Yogita Prakash, Rep.SriM.Papa} Redciy, Advocate for the Appellant and of^{Sri J.Venkateswar Reddy/Sri C.R.Pratap} Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent^{(not present).}

¶87

'fhis court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶88

This appeal be and hereby is^dismissed.

¶89

That there be no order as to costs^{in this appeal.}

¶90

Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

¶95

Two CD Copies Ks

?^c-,

(

,f G't

HIGH COURT

DATED i0510212025

DECREE

A,S.No.2690 of 1999

Dismissing the Appeal Suit Without costs.

¶104

^t(^ il{<sup>-{

B.Laxmipathi v. M.Murali

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

B.Laxmipathi v. M.Murali

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Seetarama Reddy, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs K Narapa Reddy, Secunderabad

The Principal Accountant General (Audit) Vs The Accountants General Office Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited

Raghunandan Chary Vs Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Smt. Jilla. @ Kavali Jagadamba Vs The Joint Collector(s)

Monarch Residency/Apartments Flat Owners Welfare Association Vs N Dhan Raj Goud

P Balamani Vs Nawab Mir Ahmed Ali Khan , Mohd Ali Baig (Died)