SITARAMACHARYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusGURURAJACHARYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

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   tion 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.

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 103 of
     1997.

G         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.
                                                                                D
     In the earlier proceedings, the respondent had made an unequivocal
admission in the written statement as under :

        "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".
                                                                                G

      The respondent had also set up the plea in the written statement that
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 his brother-in-law was
    not examined. The appellate Court relying upon the judgments of. this
    Court, wherein it was held that an admission made in an earlier proceeding
B   could be considered as conclusive, held that the respondent has sufficiently
    explained the admission and that, therefore, his admission was conditional.
    The appellate Court has recorded in this behalf as under :

             "But in this case opined that the present defendant made admission
             in Ex. P-10 under constraint and compelling circumstances.'
c         The appellate Court has not explained any of the circumstances
    much less compelling one under which be came to make such an admission.
    under Section 18 of the Evidence Act the admission made by the party
    would be relevant evidence. Section 31 provides that "admissions are not
    conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may operate as estoppel
D   under the provisions · hereinafter contained". In view of the admissions
    referred to earlier they appear to be unequivocal and the finding recorded
    by the appellate Court is cryptic. On the other hand, the trial Court has
    gone into. the evidence on issues in extenso and considered the evidence
    and the appellate Court has not adverted to any of those valid and relevant
E   consideration made by the trial Court. The High Court has dismissed the
    second appeal holding that they are findings of fact recorded by the
    appellate Court on appreciation of evidence. We think that the view taken
    by the High Court is not correct in law. The -admissions in the written
    statement in the earlier proceedings, though not conclusive, in the absence
    Of any r.easonable and acceptable explanati01i, it is a telling evidence heavily
F   loaded against the respondent.

          The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court and the
    appellate Court stand set aside and that of the trial Court stands con-
    firmed. No costs.

    T.N.A.                                                         appeal allowed.