K.Rathinasamy Pathar v. P.Sadasivam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.04.2009C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR A.S.No.383 of 1997and CMP No.14250 of 1997K.Rathinasamy Pathar ..Appellant/DefendantVs.1. P.Sadasivam (died)2. S.Vedavalli3. S.Ganesan ..Respondents/Plaintiff(R2 & R3 have been brought onrecord as LRs of the deceased1st respondent vide order ofCourt dated 20.12.2000 in CMPNo.2562/2000)This appeal suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil ProcedureCode as against the judgment and decree of the learned PrincipalSubordinate Judge of Nagapattinam dated 08.11.1996 made in O.S.No.76of 1994.For Appellant: Mr.P.ManiFor Respondent: Mrs.R.T.Shyamala (for R2 & R3)J U D G M E N TThis appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated08.11.1996 made in O.S.No.76/1994 on the file of the PrincipalSubordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. The defendant in the suit is theappellant herein.2. The first respondent herein had instituted the above saidoriginal suit against the appellant herein for the recovery of a sumof Rs.5,70,000/- towards the principal and interest upto the date ofthe suit along with subsequent interest on the basis of hiscontention that the appellant herein/defendant borrowed a sum ofRs.4,00,000/- from the respondent herein/plaintiff in April 1989 tomeet the expenses of the marriage of his son and daughter proposed tobe arranged shortly thereafter. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. It was the further contention of the 1st respondentherein/plaintiff that, as the marriage of Janaki, daughter of theappellant herein/defendant with the son of the 1strespondent/plaintiff had been fixed and the appellantherein/defendant proposed to arrange for the marriage of his sonalso, he wanted the above said financial assistance from the 1strespondent/plaintiff promising to repay the same with interest andthat the respondent/plaintiff, taking into account the fact theappellant/defendant was going to be the father-in-law of the son ofthe first respondent/plaintiff, obliged and made payment as requestedby the appellant herein/defendant. It is the further case of therespondent/plaintiff that since the matrimony between the above saidJanaki (daughter of the appellant/defendant) and the son of the firstrespondent/plaintiff did not last long and it broke down within acouple of months after their marriage and the said Janaki went to theextent of giving a complaint in the police station at Nagapattinamalleging commission of offences under the provisions of the DowryProhibition Act by the family members of the 1st respondent/plaintiff,the 1st respondent/plaintiff had to demand repayment of the amountlent by him to the appellant/defendant; that the appellant/defendanton the other hand tried to set up a false case as if the said amountwas paid for purchasing the house of the appellant/defendant andsubsequently, the respondent/plaintiff retracting from the saidcommitment refused to purchase the property and insisted uponrepayment of the amount; that the appellant/defendant also madeattempts to sell the property in order to defeat the claim of the 1strespondent/plaintiff and that in such circumstances, the plaintiffwas constrained to cause a notice to be issued by his son through alawyer and an advertisement in the newspaper informing the publicthat they should not purchase the property before ever the claim ofthe 1st respondent/plaintiff could be settled and filed a suit for therecovery of the above said amount when a reply containing falseallegations was received from the appellant/defendant. 4. According to the plaint averments, eventhough the amount waslent in the month of April 1989, the appellant/defendant madeacknowledgements in writing on 15.03.1991 at the first instance, on03.07.1991 at the second instance, on 17.10.1993 and 22.12.1993respectively on the third and fourth instances and in view of thesaid acknowledgements limitations started afresh on each occasionwhen such acknowledgement was made and hence the suit was not barredby limitation.5. The suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant by puttingin a written statement containing the following allegations:The appellant/defendant never admitted that he borrowed a sum ofRs.4,00,000/- from the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the admission madeby him was to the effect that only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- wasreceived by him from the 1st respondent/plaintiff. It was the 1st https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent/plaintiff, who approached the appellant/ defendant with aproposal for the marriage of the son of the plaintiff with thedaughter of the defendant. As the appellant/defendant did not havefunds for arranging the marriage, he informed the 1strespondent/plaintiff that he could arrange the marriage provided the1st respondent/plaintiff gave him financial assistance. In suchcircumstances, the 1st respondent/plaintiff came forward to purchasethe house property of the appellant/defendant for a sum ofRs.5,50,000/-. Out of the above said agreed amount, 1strespondent/plaintiff paid only a sum of Rs.2,92,000/- to theappellant/defendant and promised to utilise another sum ofRs.1,00,000/- for purchasing jewels for the daughter of theappellant/defendant. However, the 1st respondent/ plaintiff did notgive any jewels to Janaki, the daughter of the appellant/defendant.As the amount was lent, according to the plaint averments, in April1989, the suit should have been filed before the end of April 1992.Even on the basis of the alleged acknowledgement in the form of aletter dated 15.03.1991, the suit should have been filed on or before15.03.1994. As the suit was not filed on or before 15.03.1994 and itwas in fact filed on 30.03.1994, the suit should be dismissed asbarred by limitation. The alleged letter dated 03.07.1991 addressedto Thiru.Ramamurthy, the son-in-law of the respondent/plaintiff, byno stretch of imagination, could be construed to be anacknowledgement of liability. The said letter was not addressed tothe respondent/plaintiff and hence he cannot claim it to be anacknowledgement saving limitation. Therefore the suit should bedismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation.6. Based on the above said pleadings made by the respectiveparties, the learned Trial Judge framed three issues as follows:1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed forin the plaint and3) What are the other reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled?7. On the above said issues the parties went for trial, in whichthe plaintiff examined himself as the sole witness, namely PW-1 onhis side and produced seven documents, marked as Ex.A1 to A7.Including appellant/defendant, three witnesses were examined as DW-1to DW-3 and seven documents were produced and marked as Ex.B1 toEx.B7 on the side of the appellant/defendant.8. At the conclusion of trial, the court below considered thepleadings made and the evidence brought-forth on either side in thelight of the arguments advanced by respective counsel. Upon such aconsideration, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinampronounced a judgment on 08.11.1996 sustaining the claim made by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1st respondent/plaintiff and decreeing the suit in part. As per thedecree drafted in the above said judgment, the appellant/ defendantwas directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with an interest forthe above said amount at the rate of 9% per annum from 21.09.1993 andthereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization. 9. Aggrieved by and challenging the above said judgment anddecree, the appellant herein/defendant in the suit has brought-forththis appeal on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Appeal.10. This court heard the submissions made by Mr.P.Mani, learnedcounsel for the appellant and Mrs.R.T.Shyamala, learned counsel forthe second and third respondent. The materials available on recordsubmitted by the trial court for reference in this appeal were alsoconsidered.11. Admittedly, there was a money transaction in the month ofApril 1989 between the appellant/defendant and the 1strespondent/plaintiff. According to the 1st respondent/plaintiff thesame was a loan transaction in which the plaintiff was the creditorand the defendant was the borrower. On the other hand, theappellant/defendant would contend that the transaction was not a loantransaction and in fact it was an agreement for the sale of the houseproperty of the appellant/defendant and that the 1strespondent/plaintiff, who agreed to purchase the property for rupees5½ lakhs, paid an amount as advance and part consideration.Therefore, the first and foremost controversy between the parties isas to the nature of the transaction between them. The nextcontroversy is regarding the actual amount paid by the 1strespondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant. According to theplaint averments the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Percontra, it is the contention of the appellant/defendant that only asum of Rs.2,92,000/- was paid and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was retainedby the plaintiff for the purchase of jewels for Janaki, daughter ofthe appellant herein/defendant. It is his further contention that nojewel was purchased and given to the daughter of the appellantherein/defendant by the 1st respondent/plaintiff and hence the saidsum of Rs.1,00,000/- could not be taken as an amount paid to theappellant/defendant. 12. The next point in issue is regarding the allegedacknowledgement. The appellant/defendant did not deny in writtenstatement that he made an acknowledgement in his letter dated15.03.1991 to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The said letter has beenmarked as Ex.A1. The appellant/defendant would contend that evenassuming that the said letter contains an acknowledgment ofliability, the same would not save the suit of the plaintiff frombeing barred by limitation, as the suit was not filed within threeyears from the said date. But the 1st respondent/plaintiff relies onyet another letter written by the appellant/defendant to one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ramamurthy, the son-in-law of the plaintiff containingacknowledgement of the liability. The same has been marked as Ex.A2.Apart from the said letter addressed to Ramamurthy, one moredocument, namely the reply notice sent by the appellant/defendant tothe respondent/plaintiff on 17.10.1993 and marked as Ex.A5 is alsorelied on by the 1st respondent/plaintiff as acknowledgement ofliability which would save the suit of the plaintiff from beingbarred by limitation. Therefore the points that arise forconsideration in this appeal are:1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? And2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree forrecovery of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest?13. The plaintiff and the defendant are closely related. Thedefendant's daughter Janaki was given in marriage to the son of theplaintiff. As such the plaintiff is none other than the father-in-law of the daughter of the defendant. But, unfortunately thematrimonial bliss was a short lived one and within a couple of monthsafter marriage, that too, when the said Janaki was in the family way,the couple had to part their ways. The relationship got strainedfurther, as the said Janaki gave a complaint to the police allegingdowry harassment and her husband (son of the plaintiff) initiatedjudicial proceedings for dissolution of marriage. However,ultimately the said divorce petition, namely HMOP No.195/1993instituted on the file of Sub-Court, Nagapattinam was dismissed aswithdrawn. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suitfor the recovery of the amount allegedly lent by him to thedefendant. The above said background should be kept in mind forproper appreciation of the case of both parties.14. According to the plaintiff's case, the defendant wanted theplaintiff to help him financially by advancing him a loan ofRs.4,00,000/- as the defendant wanted to arrange for the marriage ofhis son also and the plaintiff obliged him and lent him the abovesaid sum because the marriage of Janaki, daughter of the defendant,with the son of the plaintiff had then been finalised and theplaintiff was the father-in-law designate of the said Janaki. 15. On the other hand, the defendant would contend that thoughhe was not financially prepared to arrange for the marriage of hisdaughter Janaki, the plaintiff who came with the proposal to getJanaki married to the son of the plaintiff, came forward to give himthe money needed for the said marriage on the understanding that theplaintiff would purchase the house of the defendant for a sum of Rs.5½ lakhs. The first and foremost contention of the defendant beforethe trial court happened to be that the transaction between theplaintiff and the defendant being one of agreement for sale, the suitinstituted as a simple money suit was not maintainable. In this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ regard, reference can be made to the evidence adduced on either side.The plaintiff, who deposed as PW-1 was categorical in his assertionthat he did not enter into any agreement or understanding with thedefendant to purchase the house property of the defendant. On theother hand, the plaintiff submitted that he paid a sum ofRs.4,00,000/- as loan to the defendant and the defendant instead ofrepaying the said amount wanted the plaintiff to purchase the houseproperty of the defendant which the plaintiff promptly declined andthat the defendant falsely tried to set up a case as if the plaintiffhad entered into an agreement for the purchase of the house propertyof the defendant and for that purpose alone the payment to thedefendant was made.16. The defendant who deposed as DW-1 would admit that there wasno document evidencing the amount paid by the plaintiff to thedefendant and that it was done on mutual trust and understanding. Hewould also admit that he wrote the letters addressed to the plaintiffand his son-in-law admitting that he received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-from the plaintiff. However, he would add that he received a sum ofRs.2,92,000/- alone and in view of the promise made by the plaintiffto give jewels worth Rs.1,00,000/- to Janaki, he had made such anadmission in the letters to the effect that the amount received byhim was Rs.4,00,000/-. The other two witnesses examined on the sideof the defendant, namely DW-2 and 3, have not deposed anything aboutthe transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. However,they have stated that one Janarthanam came forward to purchase thehouse property of the defendant for a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- and a sumof Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by him as advance. It was nothing but anattempt made by the defendant to show that only a sum ofRs.3,00,000/- was due to the plaintiff and that when the said amountwas tendered, the plaintiff refused to accept the same. A closeconsideration of the evidence of DWs-1 to 3 in this regard, showsexistence of a lot of contradictions, making the said contentionimprobable. DW-1 in his evidence would state that he entered into anagreement with one Santhabai, wife of Janarthanam for the sale of hishouse property for a sum of Rs.5,80,000/-. He would also state thaton the date of agreement itself a sale deed was prepared but the saletransaction could not be completed as he was not able to get back thetitle deed from the plaintiff. According to the case of thedefendant, the title deed had been given to the plaintiff pursuant toa mediation made in the police station. Neither the sale agreementnor the draft sale deed prepared pursuant to the agreement betweenthe defendant and Santhabai, wife of Janarthanam has been produced.DW-1 has not stated anything regarding the actual amount he receivedfrom Santhabai, wife of Janarthanam. 17. On the other hand, DW-2 would state in his evidence that asum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by Santhabai, wife of Janarthanam asadvance and a voucher was passed for the same. The said voucher hasnot seen the light of the day. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. The evidence of DW-3 was quite contra to the evidence of DW-2. He would state that on the date of finalization of the saleagreement, a sum of Rs.101/- alone was paid as advance and a furthersum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid subsequently. Though DW-3 duringcross-examination, would state that in the voucher evidencing paymentby Santhabai, wife of Janarthanam, a sum of Rs.3,61,000/- was notedas the amount paid and that he had attested the said voucher. He wasalso not able to state the date on which the said voucher wasobtained. A copy of alleged mochalika signed by the parties pursuantto the mediation made in the police station in an enquiry conductedby the police on the complaint made by Janaki has been marked asEx.B5. In the said document it has been stated that the defendantpromised to pay back the amount borrowed by him from the plaintiffafter selling his house. A similar mochalika signed by the defendanthas also been marked as Ex.B4. Ex.B4 and B5 do not contain anyrecital to the effect that the amount was paid by the plaintiff asprice for the purchase of the property or that there was anyagreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale of thesaid property to the plaintiff. On the other hand, it is obviousfrom the said documents that the defendant agreed having borrowedfrom the plaintiff and consented for leaving the title deed of hisproperty with the plaintiff till he makes arrangement for payment ofthe amount due to the plaintiff after selling the property to anythird party. 19. Furthermore, Ex.A1 and A2 are the letters admittedly writtenand sent by the defendant addressed to the plaintiff and oneRamamurthy, son-in-law of the plaintiff respectively. In both theletters the defendant has admitted having received a sum ofRs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff. As per the contents of the saidletters the defendant received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from theplaintiff for meeting the marriage expenses and a further sum ofRs.1,00,000/- for purchasing jewels for his daughter. No where inthose letters it has been stated that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- wasretained by the plaintiff to purchase jewels for Janaki. On theother hand clear admission has been made in those documents to theeffect that the defendant received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to meet theexpenses of purchasing jewels for his daughter Janaki. 20. Ex.A3 is the legal notice sent by the plaintiff through hislawyer to the defendant. Clear assertion was made in the said noticethat a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was lent to the defendant in April 1989.Ex.A4 is the acknowledgement, Ex.A5 is the reply to the above saidnotice sent by the defendant himself with his signature. Theallegation made in the notice that the defendant borrowed a sum ofRs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff in April 1989 was not specificallydenied in the reply notice. On the other hand he had expressed hiswillingness to make payment as demanded in the notice. The saidwillingness expressed in the vernacular language is extractedhereunder. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "ehDk; gzk; ju jahuhf cs;nsd;"Another notice sent to the defendant by the plaintiff throughhis advocate dated 18.12.1993 is Ex.A6. Ex.B7 is the reply sent bythe defendant with his signature for the said notice. Only in thesaid notice, the defendant has come forward with the plea now he hasmade in the written statement regarding the amount received. Thecourt below, after evaluating the evidence adduced on both side, hascome to a correct conclusion that the defendant borrowed a sum ofRs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff and that the contention of thedefendant as if he received only a sum of Rs.2,92,000/- could not besustained. This court, being the appellate court and the final courtfor appeal on facts, also meticulously considered the evidences, bothoral and documentary and upon such a consideration, concurs with theview expressed by the court below. This court finds no defect orinfirmity with the above finding of the court below warrantinginterference with the same in this appeal. Therefore, this courtcomes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his case oflending a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant in the month of April1989.21. According to the plaintiff's case, the amount was lent inthe month of April 1989. If there is no subsequent acknowledgement,then the period of limitation for filing the suit would have beenover by the end of April 1992. As this suit has been filed only on30.03.1994, in the absence of acknowledgment the suit would have beenbarred by limitation. There is no dispute over such a proposition.But in the instant case, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has relied onthe plea of acknowledgement of liability and fresh start oflimitation from the date of acknowledgement. Ex.A1 and A2 are thealleged acknowledgements relied on by the plaintiff. There is alsono controversy regarding the proposition that an acknowledgement tobe valid should be made before the expiry of the period oflimitation. Section 18 of the Limitation Act reads as follows:"18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing - (1) Where,before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit orapplication in respect of any property or right, anacknowledgement of liability in respect of such property orright has been made in writing signed by the party againstwhom such property or right is claimed, or by any personthrough whom he derives his title of liability, a freshperiod of limitation shall be computed from the time whenthe acknowledgment was so signed.(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment isundated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it wassigned; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act, 1872(1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shallnot be received.Explanation: For the purposes of this Section -(a) an acknowledgement may be sufficient though it omits tospecify the exact nature of the property or right, or aversthat the time for payment, delivery, performance orenjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal topay, delivery, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupledwith a claim to set-off, or is addressed to a person otherthan a person entitled to the property or right;(b) the word "signed" means signed either personally or byan agent duly authorised in this behalf; and(c) an application for the execution of a decree or ordershall not be deemed to be an application in respect of anyproperty or right."22. As per the language of the above said section, theacknowledgement should be in writing and signed by the person makingthe acknowledgement. So far as Ex.A1 letter is concerned, there isan admission by the defendant in the written statement as well as hisevidence as DW-1 that the said letter was written by him to theplaintiff. It is not the case of the defendant that Ex.A1 would notamount to acknowledgement of the liability. On the other hand, it isthe contention of the defendant that the said letter was dated15.03.1991 and if the said letter containing acknowledgement is togive new start of the period of limitation, the suit should have beenfiled on or before 15.03.1994 and that the suit filed on 30.03.1994is barred by limitation. Of course it is true that the suit wouldhave been barred by limitation provided there is no subsequentacknowledgement. But, unfortunately for the defendant, there isanother acknowledgement in writing made by him in the form of Ex.A2.Ex.A2 is a letter written by the defendant to one Ramamurthy, theson-in-law of the plaintiff. The said letter contains clearacknowledgement that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-from the plaintiff. Of course the said letter was not addressed tothe creditor, namely the plaintiff. But it is not necessary that theacknowledgement of liability should be addressed to the creditorhimself. The section itself contains following explanation:"The acknowledgement need not be addressed to the creditor orthe person having right to institute the suit or to make theapplication in respect of the same property or right or communicatedto him". It may be in the form of recital in document executed evenin favour of a stranger. The conditions required for a validacknowledgement have been listed in the judgement of a division benchof this court made in V.S.Manickasundaram Vs. V.S.Ramalinga Gounder & https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Co. by partner, Palanivelu, Park Road, Erode and others reported in2004(2)CTC 624. They are as follows:"(a) It must be an acknowledgement or affirming admission ofan accepting liability. But the acknowledgement need notdirectly refer to the liability sought to be enforced in thesuit.(b) It must be made by the person under the liability. Theliability must relate to some debt or other obligation or tosome property or right.(c) The liability must be subsisting on the date of theacknowledgement; it must not have become barred, orsatisfied, or destroyed.(d) The acknowledgement must be made before the expiry ofthe period prescribed for a suit or application in respectof such property or right.(e) The acknowledgement must be in writing.(f) The acknowledgement must be signed.(g) The signature must be of the party against whom suchproperty or right is claimed, or of some person through whomhe derives title or liability.(h) The acknowledgement must not be vague or ambiguous.(i) The surrounding circumstances are also relevant and canbe taken into consideration in construing the words in whichan acknowledgement is said to have been expressed.23. In the instant case, admittedly, Ex.A2 was written by thedefendant to Ramamurthy, son-in-law of the plaintiff. But, it doesnot contain his signature. Therefore, the same shall not amount to avalid ackowledgement as per Section 18 of Limitation Act which saysthat the acknowledgment shall be in writing and signed by the personmaking acknowledgment of liability.24. However, even if the letter addressed to Ramamurthy, theson-in-law of the plaintiff (marked as Ex.A2) will not amount to aproper acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the LimitationAct, there is yet another document evidencing that the defendant hasmade an acknowledgment of liability on 17.10.1993 i.e well withinthree years from the date of Ex.A1. The said document is none otherthan the reply notice sent by the defendant with his signature forEx.A3 notice. In Ex.A5-reply notice, the defendant has clearlyadmitted and acknowledged his liability stating that he was prepared https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to make payment to the plaintiff. In Ex.A3 notice it was clearlyaverred that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Theamount was not disputed in the reply, namely Ex.A5. On the otherhand, he expressed his willingness to make payment as demanded in thenotice. However, he had also made a request that his daughter shouldbe allowed to live with her husband, namely the son of the plaintiff.In the light of the above said document, this court comes to theconclusion that there is a clear acknowledgment of liability of thedefendant towards the plaintiff and that the same has saved thelimitation and made the suit filed the plaintiff well within theperiod of limitation. The court below, on proper appreciation ofevidence, has come to a correct conclusion that the suit is notbarred by limitation. The well considered finding of the court belowin this regard, deserves confirmation. Accordingly, the same isconfirmed.25. The next contention of the defendant is that as there was nocontract for payment of interest, the court below should not haveawarded interest. Of course, the plaintiff has claimed interest fromthe date of borrowal at the rate of 9% per annum. But simply becausethere is no contract for payment of interest it does not mean thatthe creditor cannot claim interest and that the court does not havepower to award interest. Payment of interest in such cases shall begoverned by the provisions of the Interest Act and reasonableinterest can be awarded. The plaintiff has claimed only 9% interestfrom the date of transaction. However, taking into account therelationship of the parties at the time of transaction, the courtbelow has chosen to award interest only from the date of demand madeby the plaintiff for repayment of the amount lent to the defendant.The said course adopted by the court below cannot be said to beagainst law or unreasonable. The court below has chosen to awardinterest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which theplaintiff issued a notice to the defendant demanding payment ofamount i.e. 21.09.1993. The court below also restricted the saidrate of interest up to the date of decree alone and allowed 6%subsequent interest from the date of decree till realisation in tunewith the tenor of Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code. This courtfinds nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the court below. Thesaid fining also deserves to be confirmed.26. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to theconclusion that there is no merit in the appeal preferred against thejudgment and decree of the court below. There is no scope,whatsoever, to interfere with the well considered judgment of thecourt below and the appeal deserves to be dismissed confirming thedecree passed by the trial court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

27. In the result, the judgment and decree of the court belowdated 08.11.1996 is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarasrTo1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. P. Mani, Advocate. S.R.No.16211.Judgment inA.S.No.383 of 1997GV (CO)GSK 15.05.2009.