Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 330 (AP)

K. Prasad v. Roop Oil Traders, Hyderabad

2013-04-25

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, S.V.BHATT

body2013
JUDGMENT L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J :–– The respondent filed as No.691 of 2008 against the appellants in the Court of the XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,29,091/-. The suit was decreed on 26.11.2012. Hence, this appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. The plaintiff is a wholesale dealer in edible oils. It was pleaded that Sri K. Ramakrishna, son of defendants 1 and 2 and brother of defendants 3 and 4, were doing business in the name of Annapurna Traders at Shalivahana Nagar, Dilsukhnagar and as part of his activity, Ramakrishna used to purchase the oils of different brands and categories from the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, Ramakrishna purchased oils in different quantities between 10.1.2008 and 28.3.2008 and though cheques were issued covering the cost of the oils supplied by it, a sum of Rs.11,33,256/- remained unpaid. The details of cheques and the manner in which they were presented and returned were furnished extensively. 4. The defendants filed a written statement opposing the suit. According to them, Ramakrishna used to purchase the oils by paying cash and that the blank cheques obtained from him were presented by the plaintiff as though they were issued towards the cost of the oil purchased from it. They disputed the nature of transactions pleaded by the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the suit. 5. Sri C.M. Krishna, learned Counsel for the defendants, submits that the oral evidence on behalf of the plaintiff comprised only of the deposition of its proprietor and his son and the documentary evidence was nothing but a bunch of trade bills, cheques and slips for return thereof and there was absolutely no basis for the trial Court in decreeing the suit. He contends that the bunch of bills marked as Ex.A1 did not contain the signature of recipient of goods, much less, of Ramakrishna and though none was examined to prove the receipt of goods, the suit was decreed. He submits that in case the goods were supplied, the particulars thereof were required to be mentioned in various registers that are required to be maintained under the relevant provisions of law and none of such registers were presented before the Court. 6. He submits that in case the goods were supplied, the particulars thereof were required to be mentioned in various registers that are required to be maintained under the relevant provisions of law and none of such registers were presented before the Court. 6. Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, submits that the bunch of invoices were thoroughly scrutinized by the trial Court and only on their being satisfied that they are genuine and the goods were supplied, the suit was decreed. He submits that quite large number of cheques were issued from time to time by late Ramakrishna and while some of them were honoured, others were returned for want of adequate balance. He submits that the plea of the defendants that the deceased used to purchase the goods only through cash is untenable and is not supported by evidence. 7. The suit was filed in relation to a trade transaction that is said to have taken place between the plaintiff on the one hand and the deceased Ramakrishna on the other. The liability was sought to be fastened upon the defendants in their capacity as legal representatives of the deceased. 8. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed only one point for its consideration, namely 'whether' the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for'. 9. The proprietor of the plaintiff deposed as PW1 and his son, Sri Mahender Dodlia, deposed as PW2. Ex.A1 is bunch of trade bills. Rest of the documents are the cheques or the return memos. The 1st defendant deposed as DW1 and he did not file any documentary evidence. The suit was decreed and the same is challenged under various grounds. 10. The only point that arises for consideration before us is as to whether the plaintiff has proved the claim made by him against the defendants. 11. The suit claim is based upon trade transactions. There is no written contract or invoice. Had the alleged purchaser of goods been alive, the Court would not have faced any difficulty in arriving at just and proper conclusions. The only person, who was said to be having trade transactions with the sole plaintiff, is no more. 11. The suit claim is based upon trade transactions. There is no written contract or invoice. Had the alleged purchaser of goods been alive, the Court would not have faced any difficulty in arriving at just and proper conclusions. The only person, who was said to be having trade transactions with the sole plaintiff, is no more. It is not a case where the suit was filed against a person, who was due some amount to the plaintiff and on whose death, his legal representatives were brought on record. The filing of the suit itself was after the death of Ramakrishna. 12. Notwithstanding the death of the trader, the transaction can be proved with reference to the records. In the instant case, the basis for the suit claim is presented before the Court as Ex.A1, a bunch of trade bills. The issuance of trade bills is not uncommon. However, evidentiary value can be attached to them if only the bills by themselves contain the signature of the person, who received the goods on credit or if there is any other evidence to establish that the goods covered by the bills were received. That, in fact, is the requirement under the relevant provisions of the Sale of Goods Act (for short 'the Act'). The evidence on record fulfils the requirement under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. 13. The liability in matters of this nature would arise if only the factors, such as delivery of goods, receipt of the same and non-payment of the consideration, are proved to the satisfaction of the Court. The issuance of cheques, even if it is proved, cannot be correlated to the transaction, unless there is sufficient material, that provides the necessary link. 14. The copies of Ex.A1 are placed before this Court. In none of them, there is signature of Ramakrishna or any of his authorized representatives. The self-serving statement of PW1 cannot at all constitute the basis. 15. PW2 is none other than the son of the plaintiff and his evidence cannot be taken as independent or trustworthy. The plaintiff could have filed the stock register or placed before this Court any material to suggest that the goods covered by the invoices were received by or on behalf of Ramakrishna. 15. PW2 is none other than the son of the plaintiff and his evidence cannot be taken as independent or trustworthy. The plaintiff could have filed the stock register or placed before this Court any material to suggest that the goods covered by the invoices were received by or on behalf of Ramakrishna. In case the transaction proceeded on belief and confidence, the plaintiff could have buttressed his claim by filing stock register or returns that were filed with the Department of Commercial Tax. It is not at all safe to fasten the liability on the strength of the invoices, which do not contain the signature of the recipient of the goods. The plaintiff can be given an opportunity to supplement the lapses pointed out above. 16. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to enable the plaintiff to prove two important factors, namely supply of goods to Ramakrishna and receipt of the same by anyone on his behalf, through proper evidence. 17. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.