Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1206 (MAD)

Srinath v. A. Seshiah

2014-06-09

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. There is no representation for the respondent. Hence, this Court decides to pronounced a judgment after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The defendant in the original suit who suffered a decree directing payment of a sum of Rs.43,456/- towards the value of the gold entrusted by the respondent herein for making jewels which include a sum of Rs.10,000/- paid in cash together with interest on the said amount at the rate of 24% from the date of suit till realization and also costs, prosecuted an appeal before the lower appellate Court , namely VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.166 of 2004 and has come forward with the present second appeal against the decree of the lower appellate Court dated 15.09.2004 made in A.S.No.166 of 2004 confirming the decree of the trial Court dated 03.01.2003 made in O.S.No.127 of 1999. The second appeal came to be admitted by this Court identifying the following substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal : 1. Whether the learned Appellate Judge is right in law confirming the trial Judge's view that even the statement made in the written statement, the appellant/defendant is liable to pay interest at 24% per annum for the period from 1996 to 2004? 2. Whether the appellate Judge is right in law in ordering to pay the value at 492/-per gram as the plaintiff himself admitted and claimed in the plaint only at Rs.420/- per gram? The submissions made by Mr. K. Mani, learned counsel for the appellant are heard. The materials available on record are also perused. Though the second substantial question has been formulated based on the contention of the appellant that the value of the gold arrived at by the trial Court which was confirmed by the appellate Court at Rs.492/- per gram could not be sustained as the respondent/plaintiff himself claimed the valued at Rs.420/- per gram, learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments submits that the said contention is not pressed. Further, the suit was filed seeking a direction for the return of the gold entrusted by the respondent/plaintiff and the gold equivalent to the value of the cash payment made by the respondent/plaintiff in the form of gold jewels as ordered by the respondent/plaintiff. Further, the suit was filed seeking a direction for the return of the gold entrusted by the respondent/plaintiff and the gold equivalent to the value of the cash payment made by the respondent/plaintiff in the form of gold jewels as ordered by the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff had chosen to state the value approximately and during the course of trial, evidence was adduced to the effect that as on the date of filing of the suit the gold price was at Rs.492/- per gram ( 22 Carat). In view of the fact that the market rate of the 22 carat gold as on the date of filing of the suit is Rs.492/-, learned counsel for the appellant has chosen to give up the contention based on which the second substantial question of law came to be formulated. 2. Recording the submission and the endorsement, the second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.