Re: Remittances to owner's account (Exs. 64, 65 and 66)
20. Exs. 64 to 66 produced by first Respondent show that he had deposited ` 300, ` 60 and ` 360/- on 19.8.1988, 20.11.1991 and 14.3.1989 to the account of first Appellant with Bank of Karad. The case of the Respondents was that when Laxmibai inducted them as tenants of the suit portions on a monthly rent of ` 25/-; that they used to pay rent to Laxmibai; that after her death, they used to pay rent to the first Appellant; that in 1988, the first Appellant compelled them to increase the rent to ` 60/-; that as both the Appellants were living outside Vita, the first Respondent used to deposit rent in the bank account of the first Appellant with Bank of Karad. The first appellate court held the fact that the amounts were deposited to first Appellant's account showed that the Appellants had given the account number to first Respondent and inferred that the said amounts might have been deposited towards rent.
21. Appellants have given satisfactory explanation. They submitted that the bank account was a non-functional and non-operated account at Vita and as no notice of deposit was given, they were unaware of the deposits. They submitted that Bank of Karad went into liquidation and they therefore did not even have any record of these payments. They argued that as the second Respondent was looking after Laxmibai and as Respondents were also looking after the premises, the Respondents would have come to know about the bank account of the first Appellant and that first Respondent, being aware that one day or the other, the owners will take action to evict them, had deposited the said amounts to create some kind of evidence. It should also be noted that the Respondents did not send any communication informing the Appellants about the deposits to the first Appellant. Nor did the challans showed that the deposits were being made towards rent. These factors when coupled with the following three circumstances show that the deposits were not bonafide: (i) There were no rent receipts from either Laxmibai or from the Appellants; (ii) the Respondents did not choose to send the rents by postal money orders; and (iii) there is no explanation as to non-deposit of the alleged rents for the earlier period. These receipts cannot be relied upon to support the uncorroborated oral testimony of DW-1 (Sadhu) that the same were deposited towards rent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 8400-8401 of 2011
Decided On: 30.09.2011
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
No comments:
Post a Comment