K. Ravindran, Residing at Kattunkal House, Vandanam P.O., Alappuzha and C.N. Prabhakaran, Residing at Prem Nivas Vandanam P.O., Alappuzha vs Aji. S, S.N.D.P. Yogam, Kollam and S.N.D.P. Union

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents quite in extenso on the different aspects of the matter. Defendants 4 and 5 in a suit for recovery of money are the appellants. They challenge the impugned decree, to the extent it casts personal liability on them to satisfy the decree.

At the relevant point of time, defendants 4 and 5 were, respectively, secretary and president of the third defendant, an SNDP Branch (sakha).

On the allegation that deposits were given to the third defendant, it was sued on the cause of action that the amounts deposited were not returned. Appealing defendants 4 and 5 were charged of having induced the plaintiff to make the deposits with the third respondent. They were sued in their capacity as secretary and president of the third respondent SNDP sakha. Though it may be true that the plaint contains averments that the plaintiff was, in fact, persuaded by defendants 4 and 5 to make deposits in the name of the SNDP sakha; and, but for the persuasions of defendants 4 and 5, deposits would not have been made, the fact of the matter remains that there is no shred of legal evidence on record to hold that the amounts deposited by the plaintiff with the third respondent SNDP sakha were deposited as if they were being entrusted with defendants 4 and 5 dehors the third defendant; or, was, at any time, siphoned, appropriated or utilised by the appealing defendants 4 and 5. The legal liability to charge a person for personal liability to satisfy a debt in such circumstances, cannot be fastened on either among the appealing defendants 4 and 5. Under such circumstances, the impugned decree is unsustainable in law and on facts, to the extent it makes defendants 4 and 5 personally liable and the decree executable against them and their personal assets.

In the result, this appeal is allowed vacating the liability fixed on defendants 4 and 5 and on their assets. Any order of attachment of any of their properties shall also stand vacated hereby. For all other intents and purposes, the impugned decree will stand. It is further ordered that the 4th respondent shall be liable for the court fee payable on this appeal. Recovery of court fee due on this appeal shall be made accordingly. No costs otherwise.