TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h oral and documentary evidence in the correct perspective, factually as well as legally and had rightly come to the conclusion that the Panchayat Muchilika Ex.A1, is a true and valid document and binding on the defendants, as the legal heirs of the deceased B.Ramaiah. The very fact that, one of the cheques had been honoured as put forth by the plaintiff and when the same also is admitted by the defendants' and when till date the defendants have not endeavored to lay any action against the plaintiff for the obtainment of the amount received by the plaintiff under the said cheque also would go to show that inasmuch as the cheques in question were issued by B.Ramaiah for the outstanding amount due from him to the plaintiff, it is seen that no further concrete action had been initiated by the defendants as regards the encashment of the one cheque by the plaintiff. The substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff - appeal dismissed. - S.A. No.1247 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2017 - T. Ravindran, J. For the Appellants : Mr.C.R.Muralidharan For the Respondent : Mr.V.Nicholas ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II, Hosur and summons was ordered to be sent to B.Ramaiah and as B.Ramaiah has been reported to be dead on 18.10.1994, the plaintiff had obtained back the documents from the Criminal Court for filing the suit and accordingly, the defendants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased B.Ramaiah are bound to discharge the debt amount due from B.Ramaiah to the plaintiff and hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs. 5.The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts It is no doubt true, that the defendants are legal representatives of the deceased B.Ramaiah, who died on 18.10.1994, and there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and B.Ramaiah, as claimed in the plaint and they have not done any business as claimed in the plaint jointly and it is false to state that in respect of the real estate transaction carried on by them, misunderstanding arose and resultantly, the settlement was reached on 20.01.1994 between them, in the presence of Panchayatdars and the defendants specifically deny the same. The plaintiff has not given the details of the business transaction said to have been carried on jointly with B.Ramaiah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contents thereof and without any proof as to the existence of any legally enforceable debt or liability in favour of the plaintiff? (3) In the absence of any proof as to the nature, manner and purpose for which the debts had been allegedly incurred by their predecessor whether the defendants are legally or morally obliged and liable to discharge the same? And (4) Whether the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are vitiated and unsustainable on account of its failure to consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the proper perspective, resulting in perverse findings rendered thereon and which are based on no evidence? 9. Briefly stated, it is the case of plaintiff that he and the deceased B.Ramaiah were engaged in real estate business and on account of misunderstanding which had arisen between them in connection with the said business a panchayat was convened and in the said panchayat held on 20.01.1994, B. Ramaiah had agreed to pay the outstanding amount due from him to the plaintiff and the same having been quantified at ₹ 1,90,000/-, it is the case of the plaintiff, accordingly on the same day, a Muchillika had been entered between the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heques and they had not been issued in respect of any antecedent debt due from B.Ramaiah to the plaintiff, in connection with the real estate business and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to lay the suit based on the above said invalid documents and the plaintiff having gained unlawful enrichment by encashment of one cheque is liable to return the said amount and hence according to the defendants, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to institute the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 11. Materials placed on behalf of the plaintiff would go to show that Exs.A1 panchayat Muchillika dated 20.01.1994 had been entered into between the parties in the presence of panchayatdars as pleaded by the plaintiff. In this connection, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1 and the panchayatdars and the persons associated with the panchayat had been examined as PWs.2 and 3 and from the evidence adduced by PWs 1 to 3 seen cumulatively, it would go to show that as putforth by the plaintiff, in respect of the business transactions held between the plaintiff and B.Ramaiah, as amounts were due to the planitiff from B.Ramaiah, agreeing to pay the amount, it is seen that B.Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as the case may be would have immediately taken appropriate legal action against the plaintiff. However it is seen that admittedly no legal action what so ever has been taken by either by B.Ramaiah during his life time or by the defendants at any point of time till the laying of the suit by the plaintiff. Atleast one would have expected them to issue a legal notice to the plaintiff narrating their versions as to the obtainment of the signature in the blank papers as pleaded and also the obtainment of cheques as pleaded by using threat, coercion etc.,. However, when the deceased B.Ramaiah and the defendants after the alleged incident as putforth by them had not taken any action against the plaintiff would only go to disclose that inasmuch as their defence version is false, it is rightly held that they had not initiated any appropriate legal action against the plaintiff. On the other hand, it seen that it is only the plaintiff on the dishonour of the three cheques issued by B.Ramaiah, who had initiated the criminal case against B.Ramaiah and as by then, B.Ramaiah had died, it is seen that the plaintiff had obtained the documents filed in the criminal court for the purpose of laying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x.A1 and that apart, it has not been explained that as to how come they had issued four cheques in favour of the plaintiff for discharging their obligations recited under Ex.A1, Panchayath Muchilika. The execution of four cheques by itself would only go to show that inasmuch as the details contained in the Panchayat Muchilika, Ex.A1 had been admitted by B.Ramaiah as well as the 6th defendant accordingly, as a follow up measure, the four postdated cheques had also come to be issued by them and it is thus seen that the present argument that Ex.A1 agreement is a void agreement as the parties concerned were under a mistake as to the matter of facts recited therein as such cannot be accepted in any manner. That apart, as already adverted above, the parties associated with the Panchayat decision had been examined by the plaintiff as Pws 2 and 3 and the plaintiff himself has tendered evidence with reference to the same and when their evidence are found to be trust worthy convincing and reliable and not shown to be suffering from any infirmity during course of cross examination, it is seen that the plaintiff has clearly established the validity of the Panchyat Muchilika, Ex.A1 and in such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
