IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.520 of 2010 Between:
Vundavalli Srinivasa Chowdary.
… Plaintiff And Satya Chits and Finance, rep. by its partner Boddu Sridhar.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 520 OF 2010 ORDER:-
This is a defendant’s second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, questioning the judgment of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 09.11.2009 dismissing A.S.No.229 of 2009, confirming the decree and judgment dated 02.02.2007, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada in O.S.No.1573 of 2002, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-Satya Chits and finance company for recovery of the suit amount Respondent/plaintiff instituted the above suit for recovery of Rs.88,801/-. The defendant joined as a member of the chit fund scheme of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/- having agreed to subscribe at Rs.2,500/- per month in 40 instalments each by executing the chit agreement. He was declared as a successful bidder and agreed to forego Rs.46,000/- and the future liability being Rs.67,479/- and he executed an agreement of guarantee on 17.09.1999 and later executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant having received the prize amount, by way of cheque, committed default from 29.04.2000. Hence, the above suit is filed for recovery of the amount.
The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement contending that the father-in-law of the defendant with collusion of the plaintiff forged the signatures of the defendant in all the plaint documents in order to have a wrongful gain and he is in no way connected with the suit transaction and in the surety proposal form said to have been filed by the defendant, the address is mentioned as Sureshnagar, Kainada i.e., address of the father-in-law of the defendant, but not the address of the defendant where he is living. The defendant signed the postal acknowledgment and received the said notice. The signature on the postal acknowledgment and the signature on the documents filed in support of the suit claim are different. All the documents are forged.
After framing necessary issues, P.W.1 is examined and Exs.A1 to A11 documents were marked. On behalf of defendants no one is examined and no documents were marked.
The trial court after considering the suit transaction decreed the suit with costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization on Rs.67,479/- and the same has been confirmed in appeal.
Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed contending that when the payment of bid amount to the bidder is without following A.P.Chit Fund Act and Rules framed thereunder, the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree. But no such plea has been taken by the appellant/defendant in the trial court and no issue is framed to the said effect.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that while paying the amount, the respondent/plaintiff has not obtained the signature of the guarantor towards security of the repayment, which is contrary to the A.P.Chit Fund Act and Rules framed thereunder. Without there being any such plea before the trial court by the appellant, the same cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the second appeal.
In view of the same, the concurrent findings of fact reached by the courts below do not give raise to any substantial question of law, to be decided in this second appeal.
Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
A.GOPAL REDDY, J 25th June 2010 lmv