Karnataka High Court
Mr Felix Lobo vs Mr P E Hameed on 19 April, 2012
Author: N. K. Patil
Bench: N. K. Patil
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAfl AT BANGALORE
DATF.D THIS THE 1 9 D.AY OF APRIL, 201 2
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BNPINTO
REA. No.1 130J2007 IMONI
between
Mr Felix Lobe
ArLed aborn 54 nears
5/c Lewis Lobe
K/c Knrinjc \Lilape and Post
Karkala Ta.luk
UdupiD ist.hct..574 .197 Appellant
(By Sri Giridhar, Advocate)
And
Mt P F Hameed
Aged abont 46 year.s
Sb Haji P.S. Ibrahim
Rio Rakshhl i Cofite Estate
Rakshi.di Villaçte
Sakaieshpu to Ta] nk
Hassan Disi oct cz 3 134 Kespondcrii
B Sd. K Chandranat.h. .Ariga, Advocate)
,i1j
l1?it t/&s ti':) at CPC ttOTtrl5St Itt Ui..I(.IIIIII:()IH
2
l1.N,8O ic tile a (SrI
JM.. Ku
1 %Siii$4 thi net> of
and pi nnu tent lion.
hi-- r-ip q. a-! •nijnt 'ut k'r f.n '1 1 'tJ I Ii".{. II !iS •l.I-.
B.V.PINTO J.. cIt li'e ird thr tuIhMiflg.
JUDGNT
lbj 4111114 ?i tilc titt'ji Ii1'i f)'b 1t
1
L planniff ii'
0 S.No 40/2 J( a the tile ci J idet (Sr F)
Uoni sla l 0
id c 22
ir till. al unwr defend i.
Ilie ei
ig tin
1 -
i I to a a 4 flO.flOO/
iiileir%t at pir Innuiji ott an amn't '.t l .5ft000, Ii br:
iS ii t)C)3 ajil i :he-- net '11 - ,t H'lietiI'i 'i um '
p2.3') flO't- lrt,n 312 !9t) 1
wfii tn..r. tfl;elr%I jt 4'' '_
iaiftI1 tfl I i',(J )' .' 'tIt fl i' 4. (i e lot I
111% ,re h'ir 1 ii Liii'
I
I'' j 'Ii t. ii
3
'flt'J cC! hut) an -u' c-t-nlenu 'lalt-il i'iS i 995 k'r ['uifl ifli%( ''1
lnnln'r %uandi;u4 :: ,lur Fine! heat tnt' Sv No. 125 ni nttL'
'. iI1a" 'il Krk-u. • euk In! a letal cgn: vi 1 2.75i)'X'/ --
tjI€ III IWI I ol 'it %alJ aelci 'lit 'I'. 1v
1 ,A. iii I
recuve 1 0.000,' U on ih d
agnc t. '. the Pl'tItl'IhI
'. c ) / Iroun
r lit. If
2 (,
rn plat
( ndani It r
plaint I u-c ci nUt in agree
'
1 1991 wu I din p .' -% flit ptitta
•i 1fl 1uJ be%'lc K .ng ii: .idiaa'ra'%t' tnt ( n
1
tj Ie nip!.
'n'fllr krcIhaw 1 tt'u ar I l'fl ti-cl '±11 ! -1' .,'er! V S •--
flr',jp '-Ti a;) th' ---- •L '; -,cu":-'ra hLt
ffls
' •)l' Pu) ' • ' id 1't •
• a.. it..i ui.?. uiuia-- ti-' .c_i t ' : -i-n. ,'• b..- ' If .a:
41• a •I_. Ii•..I
i•''•'' a:
•I,._
•..i_i
1
:i_ :_
:i' lj.._% _i-- .'-: g.I:..':!'-I.''
4
i' t 3 111 ilk' I %%'tI nidi S øi
'l.n' C)1 .i ecilk-flT ,i). I iliere'lO! e 1 ii.'rr 1% '; q- )t'I liii' It!
ltItiidctflt pa ii' tIi t i I :hr lintL'ei the ? intill 9
I L C I I
? kflt),OCL,I whwh has 't en adinilitilit pat's by il'e
.jef.'r.dai)! .' 'he- p1a!rflhI' In '.til it 1 1 'a a.3,ti':tiii d:ttcd
$jCt lb Fih gin nclt 'liii
in I dcIt 1 ( ud. rD dup in
c'Oli%tiilIliOP LIT the 1c1'ipi Dstrni and e%Iahh'--hmc'nl Cd ('run
of i. h II Judtc- 1
r Dnl at Karkala 'be %uIl va' I -a "%ferre c
t w
( '1 J S S 1.
200 ) .t'id 'jpq numb. 'I a'.- .) ".- \' Mi 200
Thrrr iltvi' hi- It -in ic-' I ;i wl p ide' bye.- [rank--I the rnfl,-n,
( )cI Ii.
.uife\iilrttt i it-Li it
I 3!-' • :J1)1".t '%
" --.11 ts'!.t
9
4 r
1 It ii .. ci I[it
£ !Ita"-- i - :-- • •- 'i--: , --,:
Wi [14 tIn 111't
4,. s; (1(11) 1E(.'Ilte% I"ut I .Ikhr'
Vhs :hcz iIt r'.iiuull pz.c'-- t1ti ['t
(If lit I) fl Ilk 4 th beT
I 1' Is c I
It 995.
4. Vhetlicr thy islainlill prcne% lfl?t Iiw
(lefendani reincweul tinther 01 n qnanl1t of
8.8' °ubn C I'cn. a 3% tT' 1. 1 Ii'
I C 1)4
6 ' iNc al t1
and ts the 3% .u'th ?b _,.23;) 00?
3 lie 1 rjer the rletcfljafll p1 rn c I hat rite
plair 11 ha', r I idecl 'Ph ,ne Vi'J watiatli
t dri C(i 1?
iii adi iitac IJIt' t"
•gictckir ciii.. j13 2 !';g-i .41(1 '.3
t1,1titI 'tilt: jt iqe. ,. 'j%;1_%.r.'.I. t
%(1'%Ø4' ,II 4 ,
1(1
_.. . ( •'t ttli•'
I .1'
Cu. aU (11
S .5
•j.
:• :n . . I
6
8. Whether tile defendant iwovcs that the
plaintiff still owes a sum of ?12,25,000/-
to Sundara Ajila as per the agreement
dated 03.09.1991?
9. Whether this suit is bad for non-Joinder of
necessary parties?
10. Whether the plaintiffs proves that he is
entitled to the interest for ?4,00000/- due
from the date of filingthis suit?
11. What order or decree?
and subsequently by order dated 10.8.2006. an additional
Issue was also framed by the trial Judge.
Whether the defendant proves that he is
entitled to the counterclaim of Z4,00,000/- with
interest thereon as claimed?'
4. in order to prove the case of the plaintlit he has
examined himself as PW. 1 and has got marked the
documents as Exs.P1 to P32. The defendant got himsclf
examined as OW. 1 and also examined one M.Shivarama
A;;?
7
heit t) rd c'ed inn. i' p r 's I
I)l(; N 1LL lrrplfraie l)i--inrn nrilt .
Al r II a ci
unc ii 't d1' C(I I C liii 17% pta
uhilt aik' mt tN ca.nwr claim ot 'tie '1. lrndarit as
11w p1 .1
lnilIl' 1' 111cr! 111% dpi a' chail 'nWnr% ii
I K a 1 C
t. W." have heard Sn tilridhar. learned Coinisti mr
thc' appekuit and Sri K.Cnandran ith ru. b'tn 'ed roin 1
1- 1 C Ii d
-
')11 (.,jrjdJiir ai nec t L )liflSt k'r tin .tphit•i1.i.it %'il?Ii1Itt'! tha' r•' i'i.-.i ' e'ir 1. % .rfl wj ii 'i.'Id'' ..
I C 1 cr1 flit ("tida I(;('. I I 4'V( I)' 'L'I lift 1 itIIiiUl c II i:t --.f'i;til';L fl's if •i I,,: •..:i! 11' I ii' C it" F h. 1 ft 1 '_ 'II _1 ' :. ..I. ,I • .1. 1 .;.._ I I. • t.., t V I a • I • •I• It a • 1 T• •gj,• ' .1 I..I..•S ' .91: S - ) %,%i , ' fl) . ,u:.rt; "I ) at Ii'.9 ' 'II)iq' IITLj' 341 •J 'Li' 1)11 ti)U Idi a'pi g ) 3'.. ,TI1 'III qi pur U1 JO .) n.'d )rJc,TJDI) I. A' LqtuTj_ aqi ifljL W)T{% "1 '-_iLfUl, )O .11.11 pa irtpo 1 'ci 091' -Pi ..ajj t14j 1 1a4 tILLI ue Lig T1L)T%sLaa.ntT qi u%p' nq s-JL --ItLI JO 1i(JT&.lUT.T3ci TiTU.N --)L{l txL1111a7 IL •4•iTioLPh1t' T uti L%a it-; r''ti. 'cuicick' (iu.; scq aq irqi 3OtT-- cj a uap a at j eppi' seq jjiju )T.I) giliji UT I itirj.u flj .)T41 I % )Ljl 'UT umjci I..' IL 1101J pOU3C atp I j))TUUIT%.. jtft itiUpt' iC J'j) .ctt• : iT 14-'T4" ::I c,,,Gr.i1.1 P '11:1_I L'I.)1Ti.',.I3 'tr jJ fl[ )--.IUT ' ''1 11") jh)LIIIULI ..t4 -'I•I •)1j)I II ii'!_J I )tLLL'.Ij "III 'q t) Li.I1' tblj'..fl (.)tI( .l si iC)JLIL) T I.) iii! 9 1uij;ijj !fl% 'LU 'J.aCjLLt!l B 9 1 MR 3a8 Supreme Court 532 he cas of mtShanthabai S ate of Bombay ud other iIi tr -h', iod intt irt- 0- r I as ]f1110( \ ehb ! I H -( ii nr 1 01 ta 1 to 01 rooted iii the eo t Se io) (t. P' n I, h r itt Ioe'- )I (10111 flhiIIO\1c C ;wop( Pt von axtrir thai 1 dot's not include '$ard!nu [in 1 t1l'Q\ViII oroN or rass 1 tOs alt aol uP 1 ealil (Nn op stotidi tiflll) 0 are flIOVI aPI oro a r I isf Tp se 2€ Ge lot Aol. I the rhsc r l a trial di o;i ii [tenet w [lt-'iiOhl 100 nittH oreVcIIi. Gu 11)10, 1 0- \0fl 1 1;t)i(Ii 11111011 11 1'O11 0- A 11 5 1101110 1 1 N IN 10 a Jr"i aeHo1 , I'ili',ii.I' 0' ''I 1 1 'n 1 0 - ' 1 Ic )' 0- '-- -: F' ' 1 , ' cr1 ' 1 ' ' r' I 11 H 1 1. I Ic I ,r 10 Ii 1 I I 1 1) ( c ci ' - I it 1 t C 10 I 10 ) e or c it C, 1 4in uk cacti v a i. t n C a Rantat oth I 11
3. AIR(38) 1951 Supreme Court 120 in the case of Sarju Prashad Ramdeo San v. Jwaleshwari Prathap Nan in Singh and others;
Civil P.C. (1908. 8.107 Appreei.ah.on of evi.dence by appellate Court. Findiup of f.act based on confliehng evidence, when can he reversed, Where the question for eon.sideration tbr the appellate Court is undoubtedly one of fact, the decision of which depends upon t.he appreciahon of the oral evidence adduced in the ease, the appellate Court has got to bear in mind that it has not the advantage which the trail Judge had in having the witnesses belbre him and of observing the m.anner.. in which they deposed in Court This ceri.ainly does not mean that. when an appeal lies on facts, the appellate Court is n.ot competent to reverse a ii.nding of fhct arrived at by the trial Judge. Tue rule is -- and it, is, r.othin..g more that a rule of practice th.at wh.en there is conflict of oral eviden.ce of t.h.e parties: on. ary matter i.ri issue. a.n.d t..he de.ci.sion hinges upon t.he credi.biii.ty of witn.es.ses, tl.en unless there is soi.:ae special ieature ahon.t the evrde;nce of a; frirt.lc'ular witness .krhirh ha.s u•' 12 aped iial i. ' ii' r iii itfwieii s41:uit'r f 'mprnI).I1nhl in displa' e his P1fl10fl a' 1" sIieit tht c icIlbhIii lie'. tin' ippril •'' (111'l 'hn ,t fill 1Tt, rEt ge fii ,n' hilt! i€ih lii liii
4. AIR 1975 Supreme ourt 1534 in the case of Dr.N.G-Dastane v. Mra.S.Dastane.
"A careful irnrJderaiinn : the rvick'net. b e 1-11gb nirl flub' to be ugh ass nit..
if 41 i, C. Fit
flit iii S tii ' t hr 11%
ander Atli c 136 v go thin r iute dtt '1
' e .-trtd k kzhi 'kern nile ualn--, '1w 'iher. e idei 1 •e if for i-h'.• lir%i t:rne Dic"n r' nulv.
4 111& ilil.;! .. bc, t phi Itti .1 %r F ( t',ri'Ii . . C inc "111' ippt; ll.L 1'n ,Ftc 1 n'ie. a' deti'nJ' p1 ic' ii; i i-p 'ther I: 'n'i v • ii u. ' 0' Ut C I
1.. ii 4tViii T :fli '''i. ;j '-. :1. a •--J 't. •' 1' • i.j,I. _T4 % •' , :t :• '' • It' 1 I I. . .flIlf, , 1" • A (1J' a a.t.I I --
..
C I 71 Lb 1 ' 1h1
S ,
•-uI ; --H
I ) 1
1% ft I jt1 t' --'. S. ,
1
..t.T 'Tit i 't j
fl Lnr q I IMd np I
"iJI 1' 1 f 4 P 'I1' Jo ). .1± qi
Ja'Lalut) 'L •'u' jc. u'q%'qluqn. 'liji II •lTIflpJ.ITrIP 34
C' 'Ii '3 '1' '31 'iti it' Ifl I
'J
- 1311. ) 14) U'IJ nqtiijj 4) p ij i cflta JaCIJf iT
V'I 34 eq; Wftji ua ll.TJ% q
1
PIuLun 1W) pflhItW
I UI ) I Cl 1 U
•MJ --TflCI •p) Ul1% .' pu U %1 T! 1j ii
I11: IIaIIflG "TL{ 91 11-1W'' %I!tl LIInhIfltI 'i •lIJal1lI1TL)r 11.41
I a a I ) )
Ta1' )1II,I' .' )..'' a''[; c. s..)tP •Uu'I %
LJ..L
a
5 bTj) q
'
5 t
I"-'.
'1 U 'ii'q i .)pIL( ra'a j'I'TTI ij 1'.1i(I(tI uP I
t I ) ft I I
ST
14
7 1w hi r tht Jucigrnt nt '.1 iii trial ( tin
11 9 1(11 1 5
jets '1 01 fl" fifl
2 'hii unit r
II t f ' i i
efore iii trial C tin lb h'i% tnt rated tic ldtt% cnltnnt I
by him In ;hc plaint. I K' ha'-- %latecl thai he !id% er'ti ed Into
pg y ag
tlu enda tid ti one war
an t at .Rc an lit tot E
wiurli is an aweenitni aated .' 9.199i tindet wlii• 'i ha. hz%
mtrrha%ed iht Ibaber in lw 1cm' nI ctandiiiQ ire'--'.. 1mm b'.
A H a
mit 1 ('nit lal the r,iirc qrts Ct nis 1 u'd
'' \'. 19') "1 .tC!da' ;llauc cit !s..ark,..l.i fri. iii. I lOflQ'. fn '.
i
1
Stirid pl' itt I ta. 1w t 1 .1'? r 'I
a d. il lf
ij •,,t
-- .:iv'.
(jl'jt
. :s •' :7th' ,1 tiC''. iii -. .
I '.'jjj r'
1
' ts i; 'I'' '--.i.t '1 lIt t,:.1!).1 1a 1''
a 'ii
i ' hi'c ..'. • I, I
15
.Si.i iAi 1 hi'i '('a%t tin. sp isu
i,c,,ocWj, !n iIit in'.Iu'ii nfl ilw ti.it.' of ;itr".-xiirfli 'fib
I U ;flt
il'oii
t 'h' 1 Ii I'lL inn t fl j'tii Si0is is oi lt
H 1 I
naki iy Lw dt"Icndant 1 hint --' cottiuit' lit h.P.' &-1.'tctI iii
bj., ''d' iii tl''' 'ii' 5 : l$)3. hit' dt'fendant ';a 'aid a
in C ?25t' C ' I vec I wh I ie %sLl
(sf1 lit i(IJa -Ic I alt ii ii iglil
EJ-'3--'iae w.rt-emen1 ol Sale •j% well d% the re' ripi IS in the
s','t,n of the deicnd titt and it' ha". prLxiLiced 'lit- .txt, ii
'C )l I ( T
ase iii it prior to fdllinsz .. e trt he "kfc sIatiLt ,i.IrI in t
'aid in a 'urn :4 t4 i.ikh--. hut tbt •ldendaflt %rIr'td Irfiftat
' wtt V-ic ci in I
)cU 1 ti,, S%i s'i 2
i.trai ii-.t-. i 'hi' Eb'!. I'drii 'his pcd ,tdc Hi. '.;.i-,
'it '' ' 1i''-" i- 1'''' I :' ' t ''
' 1'; 1
!'-''
)(
i it £
I 1 ii ._. 's.' in. t(,
jg' f.. n ',i
- - II '-I Ii , , ' ii''--'--! -- 1. ' .•'
•iL •'' • •• I...
6
tree& i 111111cc h.i-1. Sin e cleft I ha'
paid tnt aniounl iv 1i jiinl ilw %ujl hch'it tiw Court hi b
hi's 'k "t iii ii '"'.igli lilt'. '7' a'r' tilt '1! in iltt
inn 'ci it - d
1
i it V (fl 1) 1
)flt h nu in t in itt r 1.
e1flWi)flt 111.1% flflT heni lInlu Ti' ilit' T(j%. ib\sliadaicilfOiI 'ic
doelrneflI% &1fl 'tirili (JIiltd in'l it 1. utgcatcd that 11 t 1 plaint' has tie 'LIf)phl 'hit' Limb i as aü ci LIp')P t. a i i' --vldc hcibic rcti 0 (flit S'aflt no me .- 1i ih.n .u c out \ kinvanath \clvunilia' a 11:1% tilt--d :Lnothtt '--uP :n it --jw" ' I ' ret"--. r;ir j)lcliitlltl has -'b--a pro lu' t t( F 11w dan in o n:s inc is' : r".
(ii t 1 % I 1 'i:. t' '4_tir !'t'' 1 alit1 iaki. 'it. iii' j •.mt• 1 I ).1L I 'tim ') l.ikI' j1Vt ii 1) 'i' ii I' 1't !t__1'1 ! i' 'tji il'it Pit. liii 'I I I 'ii '[I lit ''Ii i I I 1 j :t' ( • ta,.C ) jiC 1' i' )( I '%.
Li -- -- 1 t_ it P.r sit/'_'t ci. •,t 1' • •i.
V T
,:fl
. li•
itLi lii. i ill).
I., '
It. C
It '"1 .) 'l ''llj
I--i I P" 1 .11' 14 'i'' t1 .'tt' 1 "
iJIITTL'
. 4 11';
L.'
g
,lLTr_ jTfj tjJIJC
CT -- M •U pjfl
jT '4.'• Lf--.T1'' I.:'t
PU Ut lift III., in'
IlL all jill Jo 311%
1
T ;
i
1 :)W;P 'I'U .ILIIuinIci )tfl :J'ITlTIl
P*!Uv'P '" -H
GZJll.KI 3IL'Lt%,L) %tI aJaqi ).)I4'-- Y6'.i[ iajj' p'iIj .141 palLTi
'LI 'et fljI1Iu 'iii L %llLjlj
a i '1 I I
Ml iTT qd aq. 4TIiflLt SC) '4jTJ I-. IT. UaJ.1j)
1
4
1T iflIja lIojP:TI,uIflX 9() I) .11j4 UI pa1T.'Ta saqunj %T •Lj
1 LI.))?'
")U P 3tItI)tLX '"" Loot Ot 'vc n i LITI'% I. q 'lq.
fl '(ii ) C UT IT .11.4 iS.) .1) TIC
)Ifl!( Ul'I Li" 10 1 TI"11
;l4tU1hi TI ).1I1-$t. l,l..TTba).ti z.bQgtiIII-- ('LILT '
t
"
4
r 1T
iii inqi UlIti V
1 L')iI'L'i J1TJi;; '4 )I t.'.'j)nI!U11a %'$UJJ
T PjT 1 'P1111% )UflO UOqT r
LI
18
I) M.St arn '1 th. 'lat hail
iii.' T¼, er .I Ii Iorrt V ni M Sitnit:,, .t .jii. i &i'J 111:11 1k li t 4
'v1nIut1 th 'r '. ilL I'%t quti cc 01 t t C. in er'k z '
•1 1 3 1 1 1
•Id% $LIVta1 hank tulr€t!1te' tn the I •uri &i tclc€isii.g tltr trts
attachcc 1)3' Ilk ")ul i. lit ha% iiirihct sia'cd 'hat the
nibe tjj edt beci cib 'ta
rala bia i ,,ne n sir' cC r 1k
al'o furiner %rnted that he has %ecured nt" rSarV j'erlnissl"n
Ironi 11t Fin-c t Dt'pav'uent aix
4 abcs 't ,ni lht Saes ri.x
a f Id r 1 S K
1% tatt 1 In liii 1 tIjat ti It it nt iii :iid )t CL I ' id ('rflj
.1w 'it't atal fur!ht r 1t' '•11'- Vt.11 pn.;r ) t% wfra%it"M.
Ioc C i it 1.St a ha d Iii
lIla 11 JQi., it lIp
l't j, ?li clre:id.ujt ;it;' . !t' ''V I
' '1' I ' '''
i ) ! ;) s;";. •1 I)' ii' a • . •I.
- ,1 ii I,
,,,,4 ltd h I c,.i.
19
13. Ills on the basis of the aforesaid evidence that the trial Court has come to the conclusion that at the time when plaintiff and defendant executed Ex.P3, the plaintiff had no right to sell the standing trees by holding that the standing trees could not have the subject matter of sale. it can only be a subject matter of agreement to sell. Therefore. it is held by the trial Court that the standing trees could not have been agreed to be sold since the plaintiff did not have ownership on the trees as on the date when Ex.P3 was entered Into between the plaintiff and the defendant. The trial Court has further found that the plaintiff has not proved as to whom the trees were filled and the same was ready for sale to the defendant and therefore the trial Court has found that the defendant is entitled to refund of the amount admittedly paid by him to the plaintiff by virtue of agreement dated 19.8.1995. In that view of the matter, the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff while allowing the counter claim of the defendant.
14. We have curefully gone through the entire evidence of the plaintiff. defendant and the documents more 7!.-
20partieuIail the vnnIeiIt ol rxs.r'l and P3. v1iic ii ire tlw
1. i ii s., r 1 1 1 -- I ntjr icw L 1.I'h;)t i.w '! 11w •i'aUri c.iitl tli.jt lit' hitili ik )t in •, ii b 'ox 1k it mc ü t a°rv n erte i' tn't red inic betwet ii 1w pFuiitiir cli I M.Su s1a t 1 .jik he sand iii S No.] 2. w ' h€ 1 4 in '-1amin tes hi c ddotiubei' utci. v r ' zd at be'4 Lv ['I could Ix tranied a- an •utrt Inc iii. Ic. %eII In t :c si sec? VS d plaint'Ii and theteft,rt on 19.S i9U5 whcn ibt nIutittiti .. er 1(1 recier i 't 'cferai it pimt had a' uinrrhij zulu t se 1 op 5 t u d a d tIieucu,.ri. 'hc 'na C .iit ha% rujuiiv aM'ILl thi. :ht ji.ttnz;ff Id o a s 1 I I It' •1 1 IF i ( I till it ti', ai' 'illirhi ih.tl thc.ce t ft oir'lsiz:'iitie ' 1 11 1 t 1 1 1 I.' iha --. trrec .
1 .t'; ..J -- i-••• ; •'• 1 C .
.
•,' .
tillac .r i U' c p :ioi't iii pln'1
,., c' c'x v Cl ii z'r t't ' I
'I
21
15. So far as the counter claim of the defendant Is concerned. it is the case of the plaintiff himself that he has received ?4 Iakhs from the defendant on the respective dates on the promise of supplying timber to him and therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the counter claim of the defendant.
16. In view of what has ben stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court is right in holding that the plaintiff could not succeed In the suit whereas the defendant's claim has been established by preponderance of evidence. Hence. the finding of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed.
17. However, on a careful consideration of the order of the trial Court we find that the rate of interest imposed by the trial Court is on the higher side. Therefore. we are inclined to reduce the rate of Interest The trial Court has Imposed an interest at 8% p.a. on the amount payable to the defendant. On a careful perusal of the circumstances under the agreement. we are inclined to modliy the rate of interest 22 It) b j) a il Pt! Sc' 1:011 31 the C cxie 'il iltc Civ'I I In ill I I' dtpo of toiiIitiflhijg 11w lind. tg iii di' ir (01111 md nrIu nit the rate •.f !nterc%1 Illini W . r.t. It' fr p.i. 'h11t lu epint! the other ft im 1111ac1.
Ti laid
w crc
11
20. lix Offict. dircrL,-t1 in !rgl%rII iii'- bank.
.zu4raec ") tnt nil C c,ii 'I jJiLfl%fl.
..it
Ifl !j,
ft
'3
'Inc