JUDGMENT : The second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the unsuccessful defendant nos. 1 and 3 having suffered from the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Gajapati in RFA No. 24 of 2009 modifying the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Parlakhemundi in Money Suit No. 90 of 1994 in finally decreeing the suit for recovery of Rs.36,603.55/- with interest pendentilite and future @10% P.A. instead of recovery of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 10% P.A. from the appellants. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court. 3. The plaintiff’s case is that he had opened a savings account in the post office of his village Suluba. In that savings account, he used to deposit money from time to time. When he has last deposited some money on 18.6.1992, the savings standing to his credit in the said savings bank account was Rs.40,000/-. Defendant no. 2 was the Post Master during that time. It is alleged that on 11.02.1993 the defendant no. 2 came to him and asked him to give his pass book telling him and making him to believe in good faith that the same was required for departmental enquiry. Accordingly, the plaintiff gave him the pass book. It is stated that though he then took savings pass book on 11.02.1993 from the plaintiff, he gave a receipt to that effect on 12.02.1993. On that day, the plaintiff could learn from the Postal Mail Overseers that the defendant no. 2 had been discharged from service for misappropriation of funds from the post office accounts. Then having tried to establish contact with the defendant no.2, he failed. It is stated that on 28.05.1993, he issued a pleader’s notice to defendant no. 1 for payment of his amount standing credited as per the said postal savings pass book. The defendant no. 1 in reply informed him the fact of pendency of investigation into the matter. For a long time, as the plaintiff did not get any such satisfactory answer from the defendants, he had to again send notice through his advocate reiterating his earlier demand. Since no response came, the suit has been filed. 4. The defendant no. The defendant no. 1 in reply informed him the fact of pendency of investigation into the matter. For a long time, as the plaintiff did not get any such satisfactory answer from the defendants, he had to again send notice through his advocate reiterating his earlier demand. Since no response came, the suit has been filed. 4. The defendant no. 3 in the written statement while traversing the plaint averments has contended that on 30.10.90, the plaintiff was having balance of Rs.34,000/- in his savings bank account and after that day, he has made no further deposit. It is next stated that on eighteen occasions phase wise, the plaintiff has withdrawn almost the entire deposited amount leaving a megre balance of a sum of Rs.50/- in the savings account to his credit as on the date of institution of the suit. The fact of total deposit standing at Rs.40,000/- in the said savings bank account of the plaintiff and lying as balance to the credit of the plaintiff has thus been denied. 5. The trial court on the rival pleadings as is seen had initially framed eight issues in total and after the remand of the suit from the first appeal filed by the defendants nos. 1 and 3 questioning the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff in the suit on the first round and as directed, one more issue has been framed as to if the withdrawal vouchers showing withdrawal of amount from the savings account of the plaintiff on those occasions as averred in the written statement bear his signature. This was to specifically ascertain with regard to the withdrawal as alleged by the defendant nos. 1 and 3 and thus having definite impact over the computation of balance standing credited in the postal savings account of the plaintiff, impacting the claim of the plaintiff. 6. On the second round sitting over to decide the suit again, the trial court as it appears has rightly taken up issue no. 5 as regards the claim of recovery of a sum of Rs.40,000/- by the plaintiff from the defendants along with the issue no.9, framed as mentioned in aforesaid para after remand of the suit in view of the order in the first appeal. 5 as regards the claim of recovery of a sum of Rs.40,000/- by the plaintiff from the defendants along with the issue no.9, framed as mentioned in aforesaid para after remand of the suit in view of the order in the first appeal. The approach appears to be absolutely correct that when the withdrawals are said to be the reasons for reduction of the credited amount in the postal savings account of the plaintiff as asserted by the defendant no.3, the fate of the suit would certainly be hanging upon the answer to the said issues and that consequentially would lead so to provide the answer to issue no. 5 as regards the final claim advanced by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The trial court upon analysis of evidence both oral and documentary and taking into account the submission of learned counsel for the parties further with reference to the rival pleadings has answered those two issues in favour of the plaintiff. The answer runs as under:- “On consideration of the above oral and documentary evidence and on consideration of the circumstances indicated above, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has deposited Rs.40,000/- as on 28.6.92 and that he has not withdrawn any amount and that he has not signed on Ext. C series. So the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.40,000/- from the defendants.” 7. Basing upon the decision on the issue nos. 5 and 9, the plaintiff has further been held to be entitled to get interest @ 10% over the said sum of Rs. 40,000/- till the date of payment. The other issues have been answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff saying the suit to be maintainable with that cause of action remaining for the suit. 8. In the first appeal carried by the unsuccessful defendant nos. 1 and 3, the above two findings have been put to test. The lower appellate court as is seen has rightly approached to ascertain at first as to whether the plaintiff had a deposit of Rs.40,000/- in his savings account in the village post office. Upon analysis of evidence in detail, the basic findings having been rendered in affirming the findings of the trial court; the disagreement has been only with regard to the quantum leading to modification of the same by reducing it to Rs.36,603.55/-. Upon analysis of evidence in detail, the basic findings having been rendered in affirming the findings of the trial court; the disagreement has been only with regard to the quantum leading to modification of the same by reducing it to Rs.36,603.55/-. The issues touching the claim have then been taken up for answer, upon independent analysis of evidence on record in the touchstone of rival case emanating from pleadings of the parties. The lower appellate court has finally affirmed the findings of the trial court on the entitlement of the relief of recovery of sum by the plaintiff subject to the slight disagreement on the quantum of claim as aforesaid. Having arrived at that conclusion, the appeal being allowed in part now the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court in decreeing the suit in part are here in this second appeal face the impeachment. 9. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- (A) Whether the conclusion arrived at by the courts below accepting the Exts. 1 series and Ext.2 afresh from any such suspicion when the plaintiff himself admits to have not signed the Ext.2, the deposit receipt, is perverse?. (B) Whether the findings of the courts below in refusing to accept Ext. B and Ext. C series, the withdrawal forms signed by the plaintiff in finally concluding that the plaintiff has not withdrawn the sum as indicated therein from his Pass Book Account in the absence of any such material to doubt the genuineness of those documents are wholly perverse?. 10. Mr. A.K.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants submits that the lower appellate court under no circumstance should have given the seal of approval to the finding of the trial court in respect of issue nos. 5 and 9 taken together for decision. According to him, without any justifiable reason, the documents produced from the official custody and proved as Ext. B and C series ought not to have been eschewed from consideration. If this position is accepted, according to him, the claim of the plaintiff falls flat and that ought not to have been so allowed by the lower appellate court. Referring to the evidence on record and the discussion followed by the reasons given by the lower appellate court with regard to non-acceptance of Ext. B and Ext. C series, Mr. If this position is accepted, according to him, the claim of the plaintiff falls flat and that ought not to have been so allowed by the lower appellate court. Referring to the evidence on record and the discussion followed by the reasons given by the lower appellate court with regard to non-acceptance of Ext. B and Ext. C series, Mr. Bose, submits as to how those are untenable. His next submission is with regard to Ext.1 series and Ext.2. It is his contention that when the plaintiff says to have not signed over the Exts. 1 series and Ext.2, the reliance placed by the courts below upon those deposit receipts concerning the saving account of the plaintiff is baseless and thus the lower appellate court has erred both in fact and law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 36,603.55/- in the first appeal. Thus he urges for recording answers to the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellants. 11. Mr. B.P.Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 at the outset submits that there remains absolutely no perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the courts below in arriving at the finding with regard to issue no. 9 which has finally provided the answer to the issue no.5 and almost decided the fate of the suit. According to him, the above being the concurrent finding of fact, this Court even if arrives at a different conclusion on its own appreciation of evidence should not proceed to set at naught the finding. It is further submitted that upon detail examination in the case, no conclusion can be arrived at that the findings of the courts below are based on no evidence or that for the purpose, the evidence on record have been side trekked which if would have been so taken into consideration, the finding would have been otherwise. He further contends that whatever the evidence placed and relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of the case of the defendants, have very well been discussed by the courts below and then have been rejected with very good reasons. On the score of non-acceptance of Exts. B and C series as well as acceptance of Ext. 1 series and Ext.2, his contentions remains that the courts below have arrived at the right conclusion. On the score of non-acceptance of Exts. B and C series as well as acceptance of Ext. 1 series and Ext.2, his contentions remains that the courts below have arrived at the right conclusion. He thus presses for answering the substantial questions of law in the negative. 12. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 have come out with a positive case that on 03.10.1990, an amount of Rs.34,000/- was the balance in the savings account of the plaintiff. It is stated by the plaintiff that he, on that day, has deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- and thus enhancing the balance to Rs.35,000/- and again on 06.08.1991, a sum of Rs.1,000/- giving rise to the savings in his account to his credit as Rs.36,000/-. It is further stated that the last deposit of Rs.603.55/-, being made on 18.06.1992, the balance finally stood at Rs.40,000/-. A critical examination in testing the sustainability of the findings rendered by the courts below would ultimately provide answers to the substantial questions of law as framed and that mainly hinges upon the acceptance of the documentary evidence. The courts below have concluded that there remains no such material to say that the Ext.1 series which are the deposit receipts in the postal saving account relating to the plaintiff running from 23.02.1988 to 16.81991 are not at all manufactured nor can be said to have been created for the purpose. The lower appellate court has further culled out from the evidence and facts as laid, the features in support, so as to arrive at the conclusion that the documents are genuine. These are the factual findings. This Court finds absolutely no justification to differ with the same more particularly viewing the evidence of the Inspector of Post Office, D.W.1 who has clearly stated that in course of the investigation into the matter, he has found the plaintiffs to have deposited on 30.10.1990 and 16.08.1991 raising the balance to Rs.36,000/-. 13. Coming to Ext.2, the other deposit slip dated 18.06.1992, this relates to the deposit of Rs.603.55 at the end. The lower appellate court has taken note of the evidence of D.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, who are the postal employees, in searching out, if their evidence provide any support to the case of the defendants. 13. Coming to Ext.2, the other deposit slip dated 18.06.1992, this relates to the deposit of Rs.603.55 at the end. The lower appellate court has taken note of the evidence of D.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, who are the postal employees, in searching out, if their evidence provide any support to the case of the defendants. However, for non-placement of any rule or even non-quoting of the relevant rule which they rely for the purpose of showing that Ext.2 could never have come to the custody of the depositor, their evidence have been discarded. The lower appellate court at the same time has carefully examined Ext.2 and taken note of different aspects touching upon it and has arrived at the conclusion that it cannot be held to be a created document for the purpose. The Post Master of the village Post Office has not come to the witness box and admittedly he faced the charge of misappropriation and it has been stated by the defendant nos. 1 and 3 that he is absconding after registration of the criminal case. Therefore, non-attaching any importance to the evidence of the plaintiff with regard to non-appearance of his signature cannot be found faulted with which under the circumstance and in view of evidence let in by the defendants is also of no such significance. So, the conclusion of the lower appellate court that the balance amount in the saving account as on 18.06.1991 was Rs.36, 603.55 is clearly seen to be based on sound appreciation of the evidence on record while accepting the case of the plaintiff with reference to the evidence on record with very good reason and discarding the case as projected by the defendants by declining to act upon the evidence let in to provide support to their case with proper justification after examination in great detail. 14. The defendants in the case very much rely upon eighteen numbers of withdrawals stated to have been made by the plaintiff and finally the balance in the account as Rs.50/-. D.W.1, the Inspector has clearly stated that Ext.B was prepared by the then Sub-Postmaster of Chandragiri. Ext.B is the ledger of the account. No such supporting document, such as withdrawal slip has been proved. D.W.1, the Inspector has clearly stated that Ext.B was prepared by the then Sub-Postmaster of Chandragiri. Ext.B is the ledger of the account. No such supporting document, such as withdrawal slip has been proved. With such state of affair in the evidence, said Laxman Karji, the then Sub-Postmaster of Chandragiri has been withheld from the witness box who is the most competent and best person to speak about Ext.B. Such non-examination of Laxman is also going without any explanation. Therefore, this Court does not find the lower appellate courts to have committed any mistake in not accepting Ext.B. When the rival case of the parties stands on withdrawal or no withdrawal, the evidence let in support of the withdrawal do not appear to be so acceptable for being relied upon to conclude favouring withdrawals as stated. Merely making entry in the ledger indicating the withdrawals when the ledger remains in the custody of the post office and maintained by the staff would not by itself lead to the finding of the withdrawal which is highly disputed in the absence of proof of the base documents. The same at best may only lend corroboration to the base documentary evidence. The evidence to provide support to that factual aspect are shown to be Ext. C series. These are denied by the plaintiff and he has stoutly denied the signatures which are said to have been put over those documents. Those documents have also not been proved in accordance with the law. The lower appellate court has gone for a meticulous examination of Ext.C series in noticing the suspicions feature that those have not been separated from the part of the receipt which are to be kept in the post office as proof of the withdrawal; in further say that those are appearing to have been prepared at one sitting and in one go. The other feature taken note of is that when D.W.3 had made the endorsement regarding withdrawal in the ledger book, the ledger book has also not been produced for verification. In the above premises, the courts below having discarded Ext.C series from consideration in order to provide support to Ext.B, this Court finds no such perversity in the approach right from the beginning till the end in the matter on appreciation of evidence as also the final the outcome based upon it. In the above premises, the courts below having discarded Ext.C series from consideration in order to provide support to Ext.B, this Court finds no such perversity in the approach right from the beginning till the end in the matter on appreciation of evidence as also the final the outcome based upon it. The lower appellate court of course has rightly found the conclusion of the trial court with regard to the balance of Rs.40,000/- standing to his credit in the saving account of the plaintiff to be not correct and upon examination of the documentary evidence is seen to have rightly held the plaintiff to be entitled to recovery of sum of Rs.36,603.55/-. The aforesaid discussion and reasons, thus provide answers to the substantial question of law in the negative running against the case of the defendants. In the result, the findings of the lower appellate court receive the seal of affirmation. Consequent upon the above, the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court stand confirmed. 15. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed and in the facts and circumstances without cost.