SITARAMACHARYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus GURURAJACHARYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 06-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SITARAMACHARYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
v. 
GURURAJACHARYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
JANUARY 6, 1997 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
Evidence Act, 1872 : Sections 18 and 31-:4dmission made in eadier 
proceedings-Relevance and evidentiary value of-Appellant's father pur-
chased business of restaurant-Respondent put in charge of business-Allega-
C ti on of mismanagement against respondent-Suit filed by appella11t for 
declaratio11 a11d renditio11 of account~~Admission by respo11dent i11 earlier 
proceedi11gs-Respondent also setting up plea i11 his writte11 statement that he 
had sufficie11t funds to purchase the property in questio1t-Suit decreed by 
T1ial Court holdi11g that 011 responde11t's own admissio11 that there were several 
D decrees pending execution against him it was unlikely that he would have 
necessmy funds to purchase the properffAppellate Court dismissed the suit 
holding that the respondent has sufficiently explained the admission a::A '"'ct, 
therefore, his admissio11 was conditional-High Court dismissed the second 
appeal-Appeal before Supreme Cowt-Held The Trial Court has gone illto 
E the evidence on issues in extenso and considered the evidence a11d the appel-
late Cowt has not adverted to any of those valid and relevant consideration 
made by the tlial Court-Earlier admissions appear to be unequivocal and 
the finding recorded by the appellate Court was cryptic-The view takm by 
the High Court is not correct i11 law-The admissions i11 the written statement 
in the earlier proceedings, though 11ot conclusive, in the absence of a11y 
F reasonable and acceptable explanation, it was a telling evidence heavily loaded 
against the respondent-The judgment bf the trial Court sta11ds confim1ed. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 103 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.95 of the Karnataka High 
Court in R.S.A. No. 679 of 1994. 
R.S. Hegde and P.P. Singh for the Appellants. 
H 
S.N. Bhat for the Respondents. 
18 
SITARAMACHARYAv. GURURAJACHARYA 
19 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated Septem-
ber 18, 1995 made in R.S.A. No. 679/94 by the Karnataka High Court. The 
appellant's father filed the suit for declaration and rendition of account B 
from the respondent. According to him, he had purchased the business of 
the restaurant on July 2, 1951 for a consideration of Rs. 2000 out of his 
own funds under Ex. P-7. Since he was employed as a teacher and the 
respondent was loitering jobless, he put the respondent in charge of the 
business. However, due to mismanagement of the business on the part of C 
respondent, the appellant's father filed the suit with the above relief. The 
trial Court decreed the suit on October 28, 1986, hut on appeal the Addi. 
District Judge by his judgment and decree dated February 28, 1994 
reversed the decree and dismissed the suit and in the second appeal it was 
confirmed. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
In the earlier proceedings, the respondent had made an unequivocal 
admission in the written statement as under : 
D 
"2. In 1946 P. Vasudevacharya had taken a loan from 
Sitaramacharya the elder brother of the opponent. Since P.V. E 
Rusdevacharya happened to be the relative of the opponent and 
his elder brother, the dealings were continued for a long time. 
6. The opponent was never a servant of the deceased P. 
Vasudevacharya. He came down to Bijapur in August 1951 at the 
instance of his elder brother just to carry on the business on behalf F 
of his said elder brother who was by that time the sole proprietor 
of the shop. Since the elder brother could not do the business of 
the hotel, the opponent has been doing it on his behalf. He has 
since obtained the requisite license from the authorities in his name 
and he has himself taken the some premises on use from the 
landlord". 
The respondent had also set up the plea in the written statement that 
G 
he had sufficient funds to purchase the property in question. The trial 
Court had considered his evidence. On his own admission that there were 
several decrees pending execution against him at U di pi, the trial Court H 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A found it unlikely that he would have necessary funds to purchase the 
property in plaintiffs name. His plea that he had borrowed from his 
brother- in-Jaw was negatived on the ground that

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.