How to appreciate evidence if there is plea that money was paid to other side without obtaining Receipt?

 The plaintiff filed the suit OS No. 44 of 1988 for the relief of specific performance of the oral agreement dated 1-5-1988. It is true that oral agreements are not prohibited in law. However, whenver

the very existence of such an oral agreement is disputed by one fo the parties, heavy burden lies upon the party who pleads of such an oral agreement, to establish its existence as well as the conditions thereof with the support of clinching and admissible evidence. The nature and extent of proof in this regard varies from case to case. It depends upon the proximity or otherwise of the parties, nature of the transactions existing between them in the past, the conduct and various steps undertaken by the parties after the alleged agreement of sale etc,

19. In this case, the plaintiff was the tenant of the 1st defendant as on the date of the alleged agreement of sale. The plaintiff did not plead or establish that the mutual confidence between them and the 1st defendant was such that they paid to or received from the 1st defendant amounts without insisting upon receipts prior to 1-5-1988. If there was such a relationship between the parties, spread over for a substantial period, it would not have been difficult to accept the plea of the plaintiff that by reposing confidence in the 1st defendant, he paid substantial amounts. On the other hand, the evidence on record reveals that between 5-5-1987 and 22-4-1988, the plaintiff is said to have paid about eleventh or twelve thousand rupees in the form of rent was well as loans to the 1st defendant. For this amount, about 18 receipts were taken by the plaintiff. The receipts cover the amounts varying from Rs.169/-(Ex.A4 dated 12-3-1988,), Rs.300/- towards rent (Exs.A1 dated 5-5-1987, A2 dated 21-6-1987, A3 dated 31-8-1987) to Rs.1,600/-on 25-10-1987 (Ex.A4 is a bunch of 15 receipts for various amounts). When such was the conduct and state of affairs between the parties, it is next to impossible to imagine that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 1-5-1988 and another Rs.50,000/- on 6-5-1988 without there being either an agreement of sale or formal receipts.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

AS No. 2862 of 1996 and Cross-objections and 40 of 1999 and CMP No. 21122 of 2001 and Cross-objections

Decided On: 20.02.2002

Appellants: Yelamati Veera Venkata Jaganadha Gupta and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: Vejju Venkateswara Rao and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
L.N. Reddy, J.

Citation:AIR 2002 AP 369

Print Page