High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
MALABAR FINANCING COMPANY PVT.LTD v. VASU - SA No. 60 of 1993(F)  RD-KL 2829 (7 February 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMSA No. 60 of 1993(F)
1. MALABAR FINANCING COMPANY PVT.LTD.
For Petitioner :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL,M.R.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.SIBY MATHEW
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.S.A.NO.60 OF 1993
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2007
Plaintiff in O.S.2148/86 on the file of Munsiff Court, Thrissur is appellant. Respondent is the defendant. The suit was filed for realisation of Rs.9,759/- being the balance amount due to appellant in respect of a kuri conducted by appellant from its Bangalore branch and prized by respondent and due under Ext.A1 bond. According to appellant though under Ext.A1 bond respondent agreed to pay future instalments at the rate of Rs.250/-, he defaulted to pay 39 instalments. The said amount is claimed with interest at 12% per annum. Respondent contended that appellant has no valid licence to conduct the kuri and the kuri was conducted at Kecheri and not at Bangalore and though he executed several documents, he did not receive prized money and therefore appellant is not entitled to the decree sought for.
2. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of PW1 and Dws 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A7 held that appellant conducted the kuri at Bangalore branch and respondent was a subscriber of the kuri and he prized the chitty and executed Ext.A1 bond and defaulted to pay the future S.A.60/1993 2 instalments and therefore appellant is entitled to the decree for realisation of the amount claimed in the plaint. Suit was decreed as prayed for. Respondent challenged the decree and judgment before District Court, Thrissur. Learned District Judge on re- appreciation of evidence held that the chitty was conducted in violation of the Kerala Chitties Act and though Ext.A1 was executed within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the law applicable is that prevailing in Kerala and as the chitty was conducted in violation of the Chitties Act, appellant is not entitled to claim any amount.
Following the decision of this Court in Madhavan Nair Vs. KunchuNair (1959 KLT 43), it was held that appellant is not entitled to the decree sought for. Appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. This second appeal is filed challenging the dismissal of the suit and allowing the appeal.
3. Following substantial questions of law were formulated
at the time of admission:
"(a) Is Section 3 of the Kerala Chitties Act
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.