Judgment R.KARUPPIAH, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 29.10.1999, passed in O.S.No.184 of 1998 on the file of Subordinate Court, Maduranthakam (originally filed as O.S.No.66/1995 in the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu). The plaintif is the appellant. 2. For the sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,01,073/- (Rupees twenty lakhs one thousand and seventy three) together with interest at 17.5% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation against the defendant. 4. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff-Civil Supplies Corporation is the statutory Corporation and the defendant was appointed by the plaintiff as hulling agent by order dated 5.3.1985 and once again he was appointed as hulling agent on 9.2.1990 and the defendant has executed an Agency agreement on 12.2.1990 and as per the agreement, the plaintiff used to supply paddy and the defendant used to hull the same in his Jaikrishna Modern Rice Mill attached with godown and return the resultant rice together with gunny bags, for which, the plaintiff paid hulling charges as per the said agreement. 5. It is further stated by the plaintiff that the godown was having double lock system and one key was with the defendant as hulling agent and another key was with Double Lock officer of the plaintiff-corporation. The plaintiff has further stated that on 11.10.1994, the plaintiff officials have made a surprise visit to the defendant's Rice mill and godown and found that paddy, resultant rice and gunny bags were not available as per stock records and the defendant stealthily removed it and misappropriated the same and at the time of surprise visit, the defendant was missing and his whereabouts were not known to the family members also. 6. The further case of the plaintiff is that there was collision between the defendant and Double-lock officer of the plaintiff-Corporation and departmental action was taken and the Double-lock officer was under suspension and as against the defendant, both civil and criminal proceedings were taken. 6. The further case of the plaintiff is that there was collision between the defendant and Double-lock officer of the plaintiff-Corporation and departmental action was taken and the Double-lock officer was under suspension and as against the defendant, both civil and criminal proceedings were taken. It is further stated by the plaintiff that after due and proper verification, the plaintiff found that the defendant had misappropriated paddy, resultant rice and gunny bags to the value of Rs.10,61,828/- and as per the rules of the plaintiff-Corporation, the defendant has to pay twice the misappropriated value i.e. Rs.20,01,073/- with interest. 7. The plaintiff has further stated that on 13.10.1994, the defendant has voluntarily admitted his liability and given an undertaking to pay the amount in instalments on various dates and the defendant's wife also given an undertaking in favour of the plaintiff as she also answerable for the amount due by him. It is further stated by the plaintiff that the defendant has already forfeited cash security amount of Rs.2.25 lakhs furnished by him and the plaintiff has filed another suit in O.S.No.312/1994 against the defendant and in the abovesaid proceedings, the defendant has filed counter agreeing that he is liable to pay to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs to the plaintiff-Corporation and since the defendant has not paid the abovesaid amount, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery against the defendant. 8. The respondent/defendant has filed written statement admitting that he was appointed as hulling agent by the plaintiff-Corporationa and as per the agreement, the plaintiff supplied paddy and the defendant, in turn, returned the rice to the plaintiff but the defendant denied the alleged surprise visit by the plaintiff officials and also denied the allegation that he had misappropriated paddy, resultant rice and gunny bags to the value of Rs.10,61,828/- and he was missing and his family members were not known his whereabouts, as false. The defendant has further stated that the alleged letter of undertaking given by him is not true and some signatures of the defendant in blank papers and plain papers were obtained by the plaintiff when the defendant was in agitated mood under threat of arrest and coercion in the presence of police and such signatures were utilised by the plaintiff to prepare a forged document alleged to be a statement of undertaking. It is further stated by the defendant that the allegation that he has to pay twice the alleged misappropriated amount is not true and legal and it is arbitrary and against natural justice and further contended that the plaintiff is having Rs.2,25,000/- as cash deposit and also having hulling charges of Rs.70,000/- payable to him. The defendant has further stated that in view of harassment in civil and criminal proceedings, he was unable to get records and furnish the same to the Court and also stated that he is not liable to pay any interest for the alleged amount. 9. After considering the abovesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed 9 issues and on the side of the plaintiff, it has examined the Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation viz. Mr.Jayakaran as PW.1 and marked 36 documents as Exs.A1 to A36 and on the side of the defendant, he himself deposed as DW.1 and also examined one Paramasivam as DW.2 and marked one document as Ex.B1. On considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the trial Court held that the defendant has misappropriated rice to the tune of 74,438 MTS and 987 gunny bags and fixed the value of 1 kilo of rice as Rs.5/- and fixed the value of one gunny bag as Rs.10/- and on that basis, the trial Court has fixed the value of misappropriated rice as Rs.3,72,190/-and the value of gunny bags as Rs.9,870/- and the total comes to Rs.3,82,060/- and further the trial Court has deducted a sum of Rs.2,15,493/-towards cash deposit by defendant and hulling charges payable to defendant and finally fixed a sum of Rs.1,66,567/-as balance misappropriated amount and therefore directed the defendant to pay the abovesaid amount with 12% interest. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. Defendant has not filed any appeal. 10. The point for consideration in this appeal is, "Whether the finding of the trial Court regarding the value of misappropriated paddy, resultant rice and gunny bags is correct?" 11. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. Defendant has not filed any appeal. 10. The point for consideration in this appeal is, "Whether the finding of the trial Court regarding the value of misappropriated paddy, resultant rice and gunny bags is correct?" 11. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff-Corporation has appointed the defendant as hulling agent on 5.3.1985 and again appointed him as hulling agent on 9.2.1990 and the defendant has executed an agreement on 12.2.1990 and accordingly, the plaintiff has supplied paddy and the defendant used to hull the same in his Jaikrishna Modern Rice Mill and return the same as resultant rice together with gunny bags on receiving hulling charges. Appellant/plaintiff filed the suit mainly contending that on 11.10.1994, the plaintiff officials made surprise visit to the rice mill and found that the defendant has misappropriated paddy, resultant rice and gunny bags to the value of Rs.10,61,828/-and as per the plaintiff-Corporation rules, the defendant has to pay twice the misappropriated value. The defendant denied the alleged misappropriation and also contended that the defendant is entitled to adjust the cash deposit of Rs.2.25 lakhs and hulling charges of Rs.70,000/- and the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest. 12. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has mainly contended that the trial Court has erroneously measured the total quantity of misappropriated rice as 74,438 MTS and the trial Court has wrongly held that Ex.A34 is not a genuine document and therefore the trial Court has illegally assessed the value of misappropriated rice and gunny bags. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has further contended that the trial Court has failed to consider the circular dated 17.3.1992 and refused to pass a Decree for recovery of double the amount alleged to have misappropriated by the defendant as per abovesaid circular and therefore the judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court is to be set aside and prayed for a Decree for entire amount as stated in the plaint. 14. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant has contended that the onus to prove the allegations in the plaint is on the plaintiff, but in this case, the plaintiff has not proved the allegations in the plaint by filing reliable documentary evidence and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for in the plaint. He further contended that Ex.A34 is not a genuine document as the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the respondent/defendant by coercion and therefore on the basis of Ex.A34, one cannot assess the misappropriation of rice. 15. In this appeal, the main grievance of the appellant/plaintiff is that the trial Court has not accepted Ex.A34 undertaking given by the respondent/defendant, in which, in page No.3, the quantity of misappropriated rice in superfine quality is given as 78,376 MTS, common variety as 53,092 MTS and gunny bags as 4256 and the defendant has not returned the same, but the abovesaid document was not accepted by the trial Court and the trial Court has taken into consideration only Ex.A35 FIR and on that basis, it is calculated that the alleged misappropriation of rice is only 74,438 MTS and after taking the returned gunny bags, the balance gunny bags as 987 and therefore the trial Court has wrongly considered the quantum of misappropriated rice. 16. Admittedly, the case of the plaintiff is that the alleged Ex.A34-undertaking dated 13.10.1994 was given by the respondent/defendant and police complaint was given on 20.10.1994 and Ex.A35 FIR was registered. In the instant case, on behalf of the plaintiff-Corporation, the only witness viz. Jeyakaran, who is Senior Regional Manager of the plaintiff-Corporation, has deposed as PW.1. The abovesaid PW.1 has given a detailed complaint before the District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram on 20.10.1994 and Police has registered the FIR as Crime No.19/1994 under Sections 380 and 407 IPC. A reading of the averments in the FIR reveals that PW.1 has given details about the surprise visit and the quantity of paddy entrusted to the defendant and after returning the rice, the details of balance rice alleged to have been misappropriated by the defendant etc. particulars and also the particulars stated in the alleged undertaking given by the defendant on 13.10.1994. In the abovesaid Ex.A35 FIR, it is stated about the entrustment of paddy and misappropriation and the relevant portion is extracted as under: ".... particulars and also the particulars stated in the alleged undertaking given by the defendant on 13.10.1994. In the abovesaid Ex.A35 FIR, it is stated about the entrustment of paddy and misappropriation and the relevant portion is extracted as under: ".... Earlier we made two allotments i.e. on 19.5.94 in RC.No.4385/94 B3 and he should return 115.452 tonnes of rice whereas he has only returned 96,450 Tons with a shortage of 19.002 tonnes of resultant rice and he was also to return 1555 gunny bags. Further, under allotment in RC 4385/94, /B3, dt 25.7.94 he was to return 46.852 tonnes of super fine variety rice, 8,584 tonnes of common variety rice and 2701 gunny bags and he has failed to pay. There was no such resultant rice at all and as such he has committed breach of trust and misappropriated the entire paddy released......" It is further stated in the abovesaid Ex.A35 FIR regarding the alleged undertaking given by the defendant on 13.10.1994 as under: "...On being questioned, the said agent gave a statement on a stamp paper in writing dt. 13.10.94 wherein he has also categorically accepted that a stock of 46.359 tonnes of Super fine variety of paddy and 36.965 tonnes of common variety of paddy should have been there and that he has misappropriated the same. ...." 17. A perusal of Ex.A34, dated 13.10.1994, alleged undertaking given by the defendant, it is seen that it contains two stamp papers and also two plain papers. The particulars in stamp papers reveal that the misappropriated quantity of super fine quality rice is given as 46,852 MTS and common variety rice is given as 8.584 MTS. On perusal of page No.3 of Ex.A34, it is clear that in addition to the above rice, 78.376 MTS in super fine quality and 53.092 MTS in common variety quality are also not available. As already stated, the abovesaid alleged undertaking was given on 13.10.1994 and on the basis of the averments in the undertaking, a detailed complaint has been given by PW.1 and FIR has been registered in Ex.A35, in which the alleged misappropriation of 78.376 MTS in super fine quality rice is not mentioned. Further, PW.1, at the time of oral evidence, has not stated the particulars of alleged misappropriated rice and gunny bags. 18. Further, PW.1, at the time of oral evidence, has not stated the particulars of alleged misappropriated rice and gunny bags. 18. On careful perusal of Ex.A34, it creates serious doubt since contrary averments were made in two stamp papers and two plain papers. As discussed in detail by the trial Court, the abovesaid document was not proved by the plaintiff by examining any witness relating to the said document. Further, on the side of the plaintiff, has not produced any document to substantiate the particulars given in Ex.A34 are correct and PW.1 Jayakaran himself admitted that relevant registers are available with the plaintiff Corporation, but not produced the material documents to prove the fact that total number of tonnes of paddy entrusted by the plaintiff to the defendant and quantum of misappropriated rice. Therefore, as rightly held by the trial Court, the details of missing paddy and rice are not correct in the abovesaid document (i.e) Ex.A34 and on that basis, calculation made in Ex.A36 statement cannot be taken as true, since the particulars are contradictory in the abovesaid documents (i.e) Exs. A34 and A36 with subsequent document, namely, Ex.A35 FIR and therefore, the trial Court has correctly assessed the quantum of misappropriated rice as 74.438 MTS on the basis of Ex.A35 FIR, marked by plaintiff and no interference is called for with the above said finding. 19. With regard to gunny bags, the defendant has deposed as DW.1 and also examined one Paramasivam as DW.2, who was working as Assistant in the plaintiff-Corporation and he has clearly admitted the receipt of gunny bags as stated in Ex.B1. Considering the abovesaid oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has correctly held that 987 gunny bags has to be returned by the defendant. 20. With regard to the value of misappropriated rice is concerned, the plaintiff has not produced any relevant document to prove that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.8000/-per metric tonne for super fine quality rice and Rs.7200/-per metric tonne for common variety as calculated in Ex.A36 statement. PW.1 Jayakaran has also not stated as to how the plaintiff is entitled to the abovesaid value for the alleged misappropriated rice. 21. PW.1 Jayakaran has also not stated as to how the plaintiff is entitled to the abovesaid value for the alleged misappropriated rice. 21. Before the trial Court, on the side of the defendant, has shown two receipts dated 15.9.1999 issued by Co-operative stores, in which, price of common variety rice is given as Rs.3.75 per kilo, but the plaintiff has claimed Rs.8/-and Rs.7.20 per kilo and the trial Court has clearly held that the plaintiff has not proved the fact that it is entitled as claimed in the plaint and also held that the abovesaid price of Rs.3.75 as claimed by defendant cannot be taken into consideration, since the defendant has misappropriated the rice and fixed the price as Rs.5/- per kilo and calculated as Rs.3,72,190/- for 74.438 MTS and therefore the trial Court has correctly fixed the value of alleged misappropriated rice and gunny bags and no interference is called for in this finding also. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has contended that the trial Court has failed to consider the circular of the plaintiff-Corporation dated 17.3.1992 and as per the abovesaid circular, the plaintiff is entitled to double the amount misappropriated by the defendant. Admitttedly, Ex.A1 agreement dated 12.2.1990 was executed by the defendant. In the abovesaid agreement, it is not stated that if any misappropriation, the plaintiff is entitled to double the amount. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has not contended that retrospective effect was given in the abovesaid circular. Hence the plaintiff has not proved the contention that the plaintiff is entitled to double the amount of alleged misappropriation by the defendant. Therefore the trial Court has correctly held that the plaintiff is not entitled to double amount as claimed by the plaintiff. 23. From the abovesaid discussion, we are of the view that the trial Court has correctly assessed the alleged misappropriated rice as 74.438 MTS and fixed the rate of Rs.5/-per kilo and calculated as Rs.3,72,190/- and with regard to gunny bags, Rs.10/-was fixed per gunny bag and calculated the value for 987 bags as Rs.9,870/- and totally arrived at Rs.3,82,060/-. 23. From the abovesaid discussion, we are of the view that the trial Court has correctly assessed the alleged misappropriated rice as 74.438 MTS and fixed the rate of Rs.5/-per kilo and calculated as Rs.3,72,190/- and with regard to gunny bags, Rs.10/-was fixed per gunny bag and calculated the value for 987 bags as Rs.9,870/- and totally arrived at Rs.3,82,060/-. The plaintiff has clearly admitted that the defendant has deposited Rs.2,25,000/- as cash deposit and also admitted that hulling charges of Rs.70,000/- of the defendant was available with the plaintiff and therefore the trial Court has correctly deducted the abovesaid amounts and assessed the amount of Rs.1,66,567/- payable to the plaintiff with interest at 12% per annum and no interference is called for with the abovesaid finding. There are no merits in the appeal. 24. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1999 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.184 of 1998 is confirmed. No costs.