The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI THOMAS LLOYD Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 6 : M/S. CHINTA MRUDULA The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEV! EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.250 OF 2019 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 13.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.126 of 2011 by the learned lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short "the trial Court").

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that it is a registered company under the lndian Companies Act doing chit fund business. That on 25.10.2008, the 1't defendant jcined as a member of the Chit Fund Scheme of the plaintiff company and was allotted ticket No.LT002DHN-2'| and the total value of chit is Rs.25,00,000/- to be subscribed @ Rs.50,000/- per month for 50 months and signed an agreement of chit on 25.10.2008. ln the auction conducteci on 26.10.2008, the Cefendant stood as a successful bidder being agreed to forego Rs.'i0,00,000/- out of 2 ETD.J CCCA No.250 2019 Rs.25,00,0001 and that was duly confirmed by the plaintiff company, after deducting the company's co,.nmission from the foregone amount, the balance was distributed among all the members in the said. series and as per the rules, the successful bidder has furnished independent guarantors to the satisfaction of the company for the due amount of entire future monthly instalments and then the 1"t defendant has paid Rs.15,00,0001 till the date of payment of prize amount and future liability stood as Rs.23,50,0001. The said guarantors have executed an agreement on guarantee dated

29.11.2008 and they have also executed a promissory note dated

29.11.2008 towards the future installments. That the 1"t defendant committed default in paying installments from 15.05.2010 inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff company, the defendant failed to pay the dues. Thus, the plaintiff company has issued a legal notice, inspite of which the defendants failed to pay the same. Hence, the suit.

4. lnitially, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed written statement and the suit was decreed in 2014 vide judgment and decree dated

30.06.2014. Subsequently, the defendant No.1 has filed an l.A. to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him and the same was allowed and again he filed a written statement denying the 3 ETD,J CCCA No.250_2019 averments of the plaintiff and denying his liability. However, he admitted to have entered into a chit agreement and admitted that he joined as a member of the chit fund scheme in the plaintiff company, having been allofted a ticket No.LT002DHN-21. He has also admitted the value of the chit and the rate of subscriplion but denied the extent of liability. lt is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff company foreman has obtained his signatures on blank paper by stating that it is a mere formality. He further admitted that he has paid an amount of Rs.'15,00,000/- till the date of prize amount but he denied that he is liable to pay Rs.15,54,983/-. He denied all the other averments made in the plaint. The defendant has further submitted that his business is running into losses and that the defendant is the sole bread winner of the family and therefore, if the Court comes to an conclusion by decreeing the suit, then he may be allowed to pay the due amount in monthly installments @ Rs.1 0,000/- by waiving the interest amount as claimed by the plaintiff company.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the follow!ng issues for trial: 1 \{/hether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the defendants and if so to what extent?

2. To what relief?" 4 ETD,,, CCCA No.250 2019

6. The following additional issues are frarned on 08..1 1.2017: "1. Whether the defendant discharged part of the suit amount? 2. To what relief?"

7. At the time of trial, plaintiff got examined pW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to 419 and the defendants have not adduced any evidence.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.10,40,683/- with interest @ 12o/o per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and from thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on Rs.10,40,683/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff - company.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri p.Durga prasad, learned counsel for the appellant. None,appeared for the respondents inspite of the matter being posted finally for their arguments.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submifted that the trial Court erred in not decreeing the suit as prayed for i.e. for a sum of Rs.15,54,983/- with contractual and agreed rate of interest at the rate of 12o/o per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization and erred in deducting the amount of Rs.S,14,300/_ paid 5 ETD,J CCCA No.250 2019 by the 1"t defendhnt from the principal amount of Rs.15,54,9g31 instead of deducting it from the accrued interest therbon on the date of payment of amount. He therefore, prayed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

11. Based on the above submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1) 2) 3) Whether the appellant is entitled to recover the amount stated by him in the appeal? Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is sustainable in law and under the facts? To what relief?

12. INT N :l a) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No..l has commifted default frorn 15.05.2010 and that he is liable to pay the baiance installments with interest. PW1 has filed the chit agreement under Ex.A8.and cash voucher under Ex.A'l 1 revealing that the defendant No.1 was into ohit ag!.eement with the plaintiff company and that under Ex.A't1, the defendant No.'l received Rs.1S Lakhs. Ex.A18 is the statemerit of account disclosing the liability of the defendant No.1 towards lhe chit transaction. The plaintiff has filed a memo disilosing that the 1"t defendant has paid Rs.5,14,300/- during the pendency of the suit, as per the memo filed by him. 6 ETD,,' CCCA No.250_2019 \-l I \ Through the exhibits filed on record, the plaintiff could prove that the defendant No.1 has commifted default in paying the installments, hence from the suit amount, the said amount of Rs.5,14,3001 paid by the defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit needs to be deducted. The same is done by the trial Court and has awarded Rs.1 0,40,683/- with interest. b) The suit claim was Rs.1S,57,9g3/-, out of which Rs.5,14,300/_ is deducted and the suit is decreed for Rs.10,40,6g3/- with interest @12o/o pet annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and from then on @6% per annum from the date of decree, tiil the date of realization on Rs.'l 0,40,6g3/-. c) The grievance of the appeflant is that he is stifi entifled to the variance amount i.e. deducting the decreetal amount of Rs.10,40,683/- from the original claim of Rs.15,57,983/_ and has arrived at a balance amount of Rs.5,14,300/-, on which he has again calculated interest and has put forth his craim in this appear as Rs.14,84,000/-. d) lt is borne out by record that the cjefendant No.1 is a subscriber of chit for Rs.25,00,000A, he received only Rs.15,00,000/_ from the plaintiff's company, against which he has already paid 21 7 ETD,J CCCA No.250_2019 instalments and further he has paid Rs.S,14,3001-, Admittedly, even according to the plaintiff as on the date of suit, the defendant No.1 is due to an extent of Rs.15,54,983/- and the plaintiff-company filed a memo disclosing that the defendant No.1 has paid another amount of Rs.5,14,3001- during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly deducted the said amount paid by the defendant, during the pendency of the suit and has arrived at the decreetal amount but the contention of the appellant in this regard that he is entiled to the differential amount along with the interest, is not supported by any proof. Further, the said contention of the appellant is not convincing. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant is entitled only to the amount of Rs.10,40,683/- with interest. The trial Court has awarded interest \ \ @12Yo per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and from thereon @60/o per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on'Rs.10,40,683/- and the same is held to be just and I / proper in view of the reasons discussed above. Hence, it is held that the appellant is not entitled to recover any further amounts from the defendant No.1 as prayed by him in the appea!. Point No.1 is answered accordingly' l 8 ETD,J CCCA No.250 2019 r-) 13 POINT NO.2: ln view of the reasoned. findings arrived at point No.1 , it is held that the judEment and decree passed by the trial Court are found to be well reasoned and hence, they are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case.

14. POTNT NO.3: ln the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree, dated 13.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.126 of 2011 by the learned lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. No Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER

1. The lllAdditional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRt p DURGA PRASAD Advocate tOiUCl 3. One CC to SRI THOMAS LLOYD, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to M/S. CHTNTA MRUDULA, Advocjte tOpiJCl 5. Two CD Copies - \ To, ADK/PSL "f"i;o$€ .:r' a, .1 n ac' w {' HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 JUDGMENT+DECREE CCCA.No.2S0 of 2019 DISMISSING THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS tPe 2 DRAFTS o ( * 1HES 2 1 JAN 2026 * lsa,l,a1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENW EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUST]CE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NQI25O !E20.!9 Between: Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited, (Formerly known as Margadarsi Chit Pund Limited), Himayatnagar, Hyderabad Rep by its Principal Officer and General Manager, Sri A. Suryanarayana Raju. ...AppellanUPlaintiff AND 1 2 3 4 Naqeeb Mahmood, S/o. Mahmood All Khan, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Prop M/s. Touchtel Communications, 3-6-269/G1, G2, Opp. Telugu Academy, Himayath Nagar, Hyderbad. R/ o.H.No.8-2-6OBl 1 l5l 1, Galfarkhan Colony, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Mohd. Abdul Razzak Alias Qamar, S/o. Shaik Dawood, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Prop. M/s. Golden Travels, 4-1-797, Opp. Mayura Hotel, M.J.Market, Hyderabad. R/o.H.No.1 1-6-798, Red Hills, Hyderabad. lrfana Begum, Wo.Mohd. Abdul Razzak Alias gamar, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Proprietrix. Mis. Golden Wing Travel Services, 3-6-269/G5, Ground Floor, Opp. Telugu Academy, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. R/o.H.No.1-6- 798, Red Hills, Hyderabad. Mohammed Ali, S/o. Qumber Ali, Aged about 32 years, Working as Tour Organizer and Communication Agent, R/o. H. No .104-13111N1711, Humayun Nagar, Masabtank, Hyderabad.

5. Ankit Khurana, S/o. Pishorilal Khurana, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Prop. M/s. Neha Fashions, 3-5-943/948/13, Panchavati Mall, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. R/o.Flat No.201, Kamala Nivas, St.No.'13, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. 6. Dharmendra Kumar Sahoo, S/o. Mangobinda Sahoo, Aged about 34 years, Working as Manager, lClCl Prudential Life lnsurance Company Ltd., Flat No.401, Reliance Classic Building, Road No.1, Banjarahills, Hyderabad. R/o. Plot No.28, H. No.9-7-205, Greenview Enclave, Hasmathpet, Secunderabad. ...Respondents/Defendants Appeal under section 96 R/w Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 13-12-2018 made in O.S.No.126 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI P DURGA PRASAD, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI THOMAS LLOYD, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and M/S. CHINTA MRUDULA, Advocate for the respondent Nos.4 to 6. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the CCCA be and hereby is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree, dated 13.12.2018 passed in O.S.No. 126 of 2011 by the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER ,/TRUE COPY'/ To,

1. The lll Additional Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies SL W,", I t' HIGH COURT DATED i2810812025 DECREE CCCA.No.2SO of 2019 DISMISSING THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS &