Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The reason assigned by trial court to discard evidence of P.W.2, namely Maheshwarappa is that he is an LIC Development Officer and under him son of second plaintiff has been working as an LIC agent. This fact is not in serious dispute. P.W.1 himself admits in his cross- examination that his son Aravind Kumar is an LIC agent. In so far as evidence of Sri. Maheshwarappa, P.W.2 is concerned, Trial Court has disbelieved his statement on the ground that he is closely related to first plaintiff. Whether trial court was justified in not accepting the version of plaintiffs that there was no concluded contract between parties and whether evidence tendered by PW2 and PW3 which came to be discarded by the Trial Court is to be accepted or not, is being evaluated by this Court by reappreciation of said evidence in following paragraphs.

19. PW-2 at the time of his examination-in-chief has stated that he has retired from Life Insurance Corporation of India as a development officer. It is not in dispute that 2nd plaintiff's son is an LIC agent and the development officer who deals with the said LIC agent, namely the son of PW-1 is none other than this Maheshwarappa PW-2. In his cross-examination dated 22.09.11, he has admitted that son of PW2 is working with him as LIC agent. His admission is to the following effect:-

¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 15 CxÀªÁ 16 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ 2£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ CgÀ«AzÀPÀĪÀiÁgï £À£Àß §½ J¯ïL¹ JeÉAmï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝ£É.

20. Ex.P3 which is a receipt relied upon by the plaintiffs to contend that there was an agreement between the parties namely the plaintiffs and the defendant for sale/purchase of the suit schedule property is written on a letter head of Sri.Aravind Kumar who is an LIC agent said letter head is inscribed with LIC name and logo. It does not contain the signatures of either PW-2 or PW-3. If really PW-2 and PW-3 were present on the date of execution of Ex.P3, nothing prevented the plaintiffs to obtain their signatures as witnessess atleast. Same is not forthcoming. No explanation is offered for not obtaining their signatures. In his examination-in-chief, PW2 states that defendant had agreed to sell the site formed in the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs for a consideration of ` 15 lakhs and towards part sale consideration ` 50,000/- was received by the defendant in his presence. At the same time he admits in his cross-examination dated 22.09.11, that he is not aware of the time at which Ex.P3 was written. In fact, he states that he is not aware as to who is the scribe of Ex.P3. In his own words, his admission is to the following effect;-