G. John Salathial vs K. Rajyalakshmi

P.S. Narayana, J.—The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner-defendant in a small cause suit No.19 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1999 passed in the above small cause suit, the present revision is filed.

The small cause suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs. 8,594/- together with costs and interest on the strength of an entry made in the cash book of the shop of the respondent-plaintiff maintained in regular course of business. In the plaint itself it was specifically stated that since she is a lady she had executed General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of one Srimannarayana to look after her affairs including the affairs of filing of suits on her behalf. The revision petitioner-defendant filed the written statement and had contested the matter. The defence of the revision petitioner-defendant is that he worked as a warden in the Social Welfare Boys'' Hostel and one Venkataraju used to look after the affairs relating to the kirana shop as well as hostel building for the purpose of collection of rents on behalf of the owners and in fact, he has no knowledge about the respondent-plaintiff at all and the said Venkataraju was a permanent supplier of kirana articles to the said hostel since beginning and he used to pay amounts to the said Venkataraju and certain disputes arose between the revision petitioner and Venkataraju regarding the prices of kirana articles supplied to the hostel and, therefore, the revision petitioner stopped purchases of kirana articles from the shop of Venkataraju in the month of February, 1993 and started to purchase kirana articles from the shop of one Jagga Rao and hence Venkataraju bore grudge against him and as a consequence of it, the present suit is filed. It was specifically stated that he had not borrowed any amount and had not signed in the cash book of the respondent-plaintiff. P.W.1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff who is the power of attorney holder and also Exs. A1 to A7 were marked. D.W.1 was examined on behalf of the revision petitioner-defendant and Exs. B1 and B2 were marked and the following points, for determination, were framed by the Court below:

Whether the disputed entry in the cash book is true, valid and binding on the defendants ?

Whether the accounts pertaining to the shop of the plaintiff were run in the usual and regular course of its business ?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount ?

To what relief ?

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below, on the strength of the entry made in the cash ledger book for the year 1993-94 Ex.A2 and also on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, had decreed the suit and aggrieved by the same the present revision is filed by the revision petitioner-defendant.

Ms. Malati, learned counsel representing Mr. D. Ramalingaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner had made elaborate submissions and had stated that the approach of the Court below is erroneous. Ex.A2 is a fabricated document and further, non-examination of the plaintiff and also non-examination of the scribe of Ex.A2 is definitely fatal to the case of the respondent-plaintiff. Further, it cannot be said that Ex.A2 is proved in accordance with law and even otherwise, the entry does not fall u/s 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel also had pointed out that there are several inconsistencies in the evidence and that the burden of proof also is misplaced.

Sri BhaskarRao, learned counsel for the respondent contended that Ex.A2 is an entry made in the day book signed by the revision petitioner-defendant. Though the signature is denied in the written statement, there is a clear finding that Ex.A2 entry was made by the revision petitioner only. Apart from it, P.W.1 is a person who has the knowledge about all the affairs including the suit transaction. Since the plaintiff is none other than the sister-in-law of the GPA holder, P.W.1, the GPA was not seriously disputed by the revision petitioner-defendant.

After perusing the material available on record and also the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A7 and also Exs. B1 to B8, I am satisfied that the Court below had elaborately discussed on all the aspects. While accepting the case of respondent-plaintiff, the Court below had observed as follows:

"P.W.1 categorically stated in his evidence, that he was present at the time of the suit transaction i.e., at the time of making Ex.A2 endorsement by the defendant. There was no suggestion to P.W.1 from the learned counsel for the defendant at least to suggest that he (i.e. P.W.1) was not present at the time of making of the alleged endorsement covered by Ex.A2. This, in other words, is nothing shoft of an admission of the presence of P.W.1 at the time of the suit transaction. More-over, the General power of Attorney Holder is not a stranger to the family of the plaintiff. It is the evidence of the defendant, as can be seen from his cross-examination, that the General power of Attorney Holder (i.e. P.W.1) is a member of the joint family of the plaintiff".

Apart from the knowledge of P.W.1 relating to the transaction, it is settled law that a power of attorney holder having knowledge about the facts of the case can depose. Here is a case where the power of attorney holder is none other than a close relative belonging to the same family. In KANAKAPUDI BHARATHI & ANOTHER v AUTHORITY u/s 50 OF THE A.P. SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT-CUM-LABOUR OFFICER, MACHILIPATNAM AND ANOTHER1 it was held that the power of attorney holder of a party can appear as a witness in his personal capacity to speak about the facts which are within his personal knowledge. But, however, he cannot appear as a witness on behalf of a party in the capacity of that party. Hence, the examination of power of attorney holder in the present set of facts and circumstances cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the plaintiff.

The Court below also had observed:

"So, a careful perusal of the whole gamut of the evidence adduced by the defendant, which includes both oral and documentary, reveals that his defence is completely false as his alleged purchase of kiran articles from the shop of K. Venkataraju and his alleged disputes with the said K. Venkataraju regarding the prices pertaining to the kirana articles said to hae been purchased from his shop do not arise since admittedly, the said K. Venkataraju was not alive by the year 1992. More-over, the defendant''s admission, as can be seen from his cross-examination, is that he has no knowledge about the person by name k. Venkataraju. His specific answer in his cross-examination is that he did not know, personally the person by name K. Venkataraju. Consequently, I am constrained to arrive at the irresistible conclusion to hold that the defendant''s contention on this aspect as well as his very contest in this suit is totally false. Another important aspect that is to be noted is that the defendant submitted the vouchers covered by Exs.B.4 to B.12 to his superiors and that thouse vouchers were passed by his superiors, but a perusal of the vouchers marked as Ex.B.4 to B.12 reveals that the date on which these vouchers were received in the office of his superiors was not there. Likewise no seal or stamp of the office of the A.A.O. of the Social Welfare Department was affixed on these receipts. The date stamp on which these vouchers were received in the office of A.A.O. was also not there. Likewise, there is nothing on record to show that Exs.B.4 to B.12 were submitted to the office of A.A.O. for pass orders. Of course the alleged initials of A.A.O. in token of passing of the vouchers were there on the reverse of Exs. B.4 to B.12 vouchers. But there is no proof to show that these Exs.B.4 to B.12 were issued by the person by name K. Venkataraju. No admitted signatures pertaining to the person by name K. Venkataraju were furnished to this court at least enabling it to compare them with that of the disputed signatures. Available in Exs.B.4 to B.12 vouchers. So, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that Exs.B.4 to B.12 vouchers were issued by the person by name K. Venkataraju as he is said to have been died by 21.10.1990. I am, therefore, constrained to observe that the contest of the defendant in this suit is totally false."

Apart from it as far as Ex.A2 is concerned, it is an entry in the books of account regularly kept in the course of business which is relevant u/s 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. In re, BEHARILAL BALDEOPRASAD FIRM OF MERCHANTS by partner TAGOOR PRASAD AND OTHERS2, while dealing with the aspect of jurisdiction u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, it was observed:

"The High Court has wider jurisdiction under S.25, in entertaining revision applications than under the provisions of S.115, Civil P.C. But where the evidence makes it clear that a question of fact was gone into by the Judge and this decision is apparently in accordance with the evidence, the High Court will not usually interfere in revision merely because it is possible to take a different view of the evidence to that of the Court below. The decision of the Small Cause Court should not be interfered with in revision though it may appear even to be erroneous unless the conclusion is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably reach."

The evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and also Ex.A2 coupled with other oral and documentary evidence clearly go to show that the claim of the respondent-plaintiff had been clearly established. In fact, the Court below had discussed the evidence in detail and made an elaborate order. I had gone through the complete judgment of the Court below and I do not find any legal infirmity committed by the Court below warranting interference u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this Revision and it is accordingly dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, without costs.