Form no. (J) 2. Heading of Judgment in original suit/ case In the original court of the Munsiff No 1, Nalbari

Transcription

1 1 Form no. (J) 2 Heading of Judgment in original suit/ case In the original court of the Munsiff No 1, Nalbari Present: - Syeda Sabina Afzal Zinnat, AJS Dated: - 22nd September 2014 MONEY SUIT 21/2013 PLAINTIFF Sri Kshitish Chandra Barman S/O Late Aditya Barman Dharmapur, Belsor, District: Nalbari Versus DEFENDANT Sri Pradip Mena & others Melkipara Supa, Belsor, District: Nalbari This suit/ case coming on for final hearing on 20/8/14 in the Presence of:- Mr. Shahjahan Ali, Advocate for the plaintiff Mr. Kader Ali, Advocate for the defendant. And having stood for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following judgment. JUDGEMENT This is a suit for recovery of money. PLAINTIFFS CASE: 1. Plaintiff has submitted in his pleadings that plaintiff and defendants were residents of same village as such they were in good relationships. The defendants being the member of one

2 2 family were running a savings scheme (Sanchay Achani) in the name of Pushpa Rural Development Fund. The defendants persuaded the plaintiff to open one account and accordingly a daily deposit passbook bearing no was opened in the name of the plaintiff on The plaintiff had to deposit Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) only per day for one year i.e. from to Defendants no. 2 and 3 used to collect money every day and the passbook was updated regularly. The plaintiff had opened another account bearing no. B-2040 in which the plaintiff had to deposit Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) per day from The total receivable amount from the first account was Rs. 47,500/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred) only and from the second account was Rs /- (Rupees Ten Thousand Three Hundred) only and thus the total amount receivable was Rs. 57,800/-. (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred) only. It is the case of the plaintiff that suddenly the defendants stopped collecting money and defendant No 1 disappeared from the village. The plaintiff requested defendant no 2 and 3 several times to return him the money but the defendants refused. 2. Having no alternative the plaintiff sent a pleader s notice on 3/10/2013 by registered post to the defendants but the defendant refused to accept. Hence the plaintiff has preferred this suit for realisation of the money due from the defendant. 3. Summons was issued to the defendants but the defendants did not appear to contest the suit and thus the suit proceeded ex parte against the defendants. 4. As there is no written statement in the suit hence no issues are framed. But in order to reach at a definite conclusion as regards the matter, I have framed the following points for determination: 5. (I) Whether there is cause of action for the suit? (II) Whether the defendant owes the plaintiff an amount of Rs 57,800/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred) only? (III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for?

3 3 6. The plaintiff in support of its case examined himself as PW1 and another witness as PW2. The plaintiff has exhibited some pleader s notice and some pass books. DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF: 7. Point No. 1: The plaintiff has prayed for a decree for recovery of money which according to him, he had deposited in some savings scheme opened by the defendant. The plaintiff has to proof the existence of the facts which he has asserted in the plaint in order to obtain the decree. Therefore in my opinion there is cause of action for the suit. 8. Point No. 2 and 3: For the sake of convenience these two points are taken up together as they are related. 9. The plaintiff has stated in his evidence in chief that the plaintiff and defendant were residents of the same village and in good relationships. The defendants being the member of one family were running a savings scheme (Sanchay Achani) in the name of Pushpa Rural Development Fund. The defendants persuaded the plaintiff to open one account and accordingly a daily deposit passbook bearing no was opened in the name of the plaintiff on The plaintiff had to deposit Rs. 100/- per day for one year i.e. from to Defendants no 2 and 3 used to collect money every day and the passbook was updated regularly. The plaintiff had opened another account bearing no. B-2040 in which the plaintiff had to deposit Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) only per day from The total receivable amount from the first account was Rs. 47,500/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred) only and from the second account was Rs. 10,300/- ( Rupees Ten Thousand Three Hundred) only and thus the total amount receivable was Rs. 57,800/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred) only. It is the case

4 4 of the plaintiff that suddenly the defendants stopped collecting money and defendant No 1 disappeared from the village. The plaintiff requested defendant no 2 and 3 several times to return him the money but the defendants refused. Having no alternative the plaintiff sent a pleader s notice on 3/10/2013 by registered post to the defendants but the defendant refused to accept the same. 10. PW2 Bipul Barman has stated in his evidence that he knows both the plaintiff and the defendants. He said that he knew that the defendants had opened one savings scheme in the name of Pushpa Rural Development Fund. PW2 stated that the plaintiff was depositing money daily in the account which was opened in the said savings scheme and that the plaintiff has to get back total Rs. 57,800/- Rupees (Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred) only. 11. On careful perusal of the deposition as well as the exhibits referred above I find that the plaintiff had deposited Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) only per day in savings account no for a period of one year i.e. 365 days and Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) only per day in the account no. B-2040 for a period of 103 days. Hence it appears that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 47,500/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred) only in respect of the account No as it is mentioned in the pass book itself that the maturity amount for one year is Rs. 47,500/- and the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs /- (Rupees Ten Thousand Three Hundred) only in respect of account no. B-2040 from the defendant. It is a cardinal principle of law that the evidence led must conform to the pleadings. In this case the plaintiff succeeded to show that the plaintiff had deposited the said amount in the savings account and that the defendant owes the plaintiff the money as claimed by the plaintiff.

5 5 12. Point No. 4: In view of the decision in point No.2 above I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff succeeded in establishing his case and hence the plaintiff is entitled to the decree. Issues no. 2 and 3 are decided in the positive. ORDER In view of the above discussions and decisions the suit is decreed exparte in favour of the plaintiff with cost. The plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs /- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred) only from the defendants. Prepare the decree accordingly within 15 days. Given under the hand and seal of this court on this the 22 nd day of September, 2014 at Nalbari, Assam. Syeda Sabina Afzal Zinnat AJS Munsiff No. 1, Nalbari

6 6 APPENDIX: WITNESSES FOR PLAINTIFF 1. PW1: Kshitish Chandra Barman 2. PW2: Bipul Barman LIST OF EXHIBITS: 1. Ext 1: Pass book of account no Ext 2: Pass book of account no. B Ext 3 & 4: Pleaders notice to defendants.