JUDGMENT : Easwaran S., J. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money, who was non-suited concurrently by the courts below on the ground that she has not proved the transaction. 2. The plaintiff had opened a Post Office Recurring Deposit account at the behest of the 7 th defendant, who is the agent. Pursuant to opening of the account, the plaintiff was made to believe that the 7 th defendant canvassed the scheme in relation to the deposit on behalf of defendants 1 to 6. The plaintiff has paid the entire amount to the 7 th defendant, who collected the amount in equal monthly instalments of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each and was under obligation to remit it before the 6 th defendant. The modus of operation is that the 7 th defendant used to collect monthly instalments and endorse the collection in a card which should be retained by the depositor. The plaintiff contends that pursuant to the transaction, the 7 th defendant endorsed the collection in a card and the same was retained by her. Later, the plaintiff realized that the entire amount collected by the 7 th defendant was not remitted with the 6 th defendant. Only eight equal monthly instalments were remitted with the 6 th defendant. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money along with the 7 th defendant in the party array. The 7 th defendant contested the suit and contended that whatever amount she had received from the plaintiff has been credited in her account in the post office. As far as other defendants are concerned, only defendants 1,3 and 6 contested the case. The defendants 1,3 and 6, however admitted that the plaintiff had opened a Recurring Deposit account with the 6 th defendant and the same was allotted with an account number. However, it was further stated that the depositors were advised that if agent after collection of the amounts did not endorse the same in the pass book within ten days, no further amounts should be paid. With these material pleadings, the parties went to the trial. Before the trial court, the plaintiff adduced Exts.A1 to A3 documentary evidence and examined herself as PW1. With these material pleadings, the parties went to the trial. Before the trial court, the plaintiff adduced Exts.A1 to A3 documentary evidence and examined herself as PW1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by defendants 1 to 6, except that the 7 th defendant produced Ext.B1 on her behalf and examined herself as DW1. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to conclusion that plaintiff has not conclusively proved the entries in Ext.A2 and accordingly, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.17 of 2005, which was also dismissed by the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram affirming the judgment of the trail court and hence the appeal. 3. Heard Smt.Surumi Nazar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Atul Mathews, learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent and Sri.K.Denny Devassy, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 8 th respondent and Sri.Survin R.Menon, learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the other respondents. 4. On 29.02.2012, this Court admitted the appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Has not the court below wrongly cast the burden on the plaintiff especially when portions of the document has been admitted by the 7 th defendant to have been executed by her? (ii) Is not the burden of proving that signatures and handwriting in Ext.A2 other than those which are admitted by the 7 th defendant especially when certain entries are admitted to be in the handwriting of the 7 th defendant? Have not courts below wrongly case the burden of proof on the appellants? (iii) Has not the first appellate court erred in dismissing I.A. Nos.7764 and 7765 of 2009 filed by the appellant to send Ext.A2 to the Expert for opinion and summon the enquiry report concerning falsification of amount made by the 7 th respondent?” 5. The basic issue to be considered in the present appeal is whether the plaintiff has proved Ext.A2 document?. It is the specific case of the 7 th respondent that she has endorsed in Ext.A2, whatever amount which has been paid by the plaintiff. Thus, in effect, there is a denial on the part of the 7 th respondent that beyond eight equal monthly instalments, rest of the payments had not been received by her. 6. The courts below have basically considered respective merits of the case based on Ext.A2. Thus, in effect, there is a denial on the part of the 7 th respondent that beyond eight equal monthly instalments, rest of the payments had not been received by her. 6. The courts below have basically considered respective merits of the case based on Ext.A2. The learned counsel for the appellant would, however, submit that the denial of the receipt of the amount beyond eight monthly instalments is evasive and that such evasive denial cannot form the basis of adjudication by the trial court. In support of her contention, she relied on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Thangam Vs. Navamani Ammal (2024 KHC 6110). The defendants 1, 3 and 6 have, however, admitted the opening of the Recurring Deposit account, but then, the crucial question to be considered is whether the plaintiff has deposited more than eight equal monthly instalments. The trial court, however, did not believe the plaintiff and the entries contained under Ext.A2. 7. The further question is whether the signature contained in Ext.A2 should have been sent for expert opinion as contended by the learned counsel for the 7 th respondent. This Court does not see any merit in the aforesaid argument because of the evasive denial of the 7 th defendant in her written statement. In fact, the only contention in the written statement as against the plea of remittance of the entry 56 or as a matter of fact 61 instalments which is in paragraph No.16. It is felt expedient to extract paragraph No.16 of the written statement and the same as follows: “16. Averments in para 3 of the plaint are not fully correct. The entire amount entrusted to this defendant by the plaintiff has been duly credited in her account in the post office. This defendant has put her signature in the collection card only for the amount actually collected by her from the plaintiff and the entire amount so collected has been deposited in the account of the plaintiff.” 8. A cursory glance at the aforesaid statement would show that the 7 th defendant had stated that whatever amount she had received, has been accounted for. It is thus clear that there is no specific denial regarding the non-receipt of the further amounts or for that matter, there is any dispute regarding signatures. A cursory glance at the aforesaid statement would show that the 7 th defendant had stated that whatever amount she had received, has been accounted for. It is thus clear that there is no specific denial regarding the non-receipt of the further amounts or for that matter, there is any dispute regarding signatures. It is only when such a specific denial regarding the signature contained in Ext.A2 is raised, the plaintiff has got the obligation to send the same for expert opinion. 9. Coming to the vicarious liability of respondents 1 to 6, it is clear that, from the law of agency, the principle is vicariously liable for the act of its agent. It is not disputed before the trial court and also before this Court that the 7 th respondent was appointed as an agent through the 8 th respondent. It is also admitted that the Recurring Deposit account was opened in the name of the plaintiff. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is evident that in the absence of any specific demand on the part of the 7 th defendant as regards the signature contained in Ext.A2, it is clear that the misappropriation has happened at the hands of the 7 th defendant in not accounting for the entire amount which has been received from the plaintiff. This Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the 7 th respondent is a close relative of the plaintiff and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be brushed aside. 10. Now coming to the contention of defendants 1 to 3 and 6 in their written statement that, as far as the non accounting of the amount contained in the pass book within a period of ten days from the remittance to the agent is concerned, the general instructions per se will not apply or absolved them from the liability in the absence of any concrete evidence to show that they had intimated to the plaintiff with regard to the due process of law. Therefore, if the amounts are remitted by the plaintiff believing the actions of the agent, necessarily the principle will have to be made liable. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the judgments rendered by the courts below are vitiated by perverse appreciation of facts and also the law on the point. Therefore, if the amounts are remitted by the plaintiff believing the actions of the agent, necessarily the principle will have to be made liable. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the judgments rendered by the courts below are vitiated by perverse appreciation of facts and also the law on the point. The courts below also miserably failed to consider the fact that defendants 1 to 6 are also vicariously liable for the deeds of his agent. The failure to appreciate the law and the evidence properly, would certainly amount to miscarriage of justice, which entitles the plaintiff to the remedy in exercise of the powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908. Resultantly, this Court is of the view that the substantial question of law framed in the appeal are to be answered in favour of the appellant as follows: (a) The courts below went wrong in casting burden on the plaintiff when a portion of Ext.A2 has been admitted by the 7 th defendant and also in the absence of any specific denial regarding the other entries. (b) The burden of proving the signatures and handwriting in Ext.A2 is certainly on the 7 th defendant in the absence of any specific denial beyond a point. In view of the above answers, the third substantial question of law framed becomes insignificant. Accordingly, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1214 of 2000 on the files of I st Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram as affirmed in A.S.No.17 of 2005 on the files of Principle Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram stands set aside and O.S.No.1214 of 2000 is decreed as follows: The plaintiff is granted a recovery of an amount of Rs.56,000/- (Rupees Fifty Six thousand only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of suit till realization from defendants 1 to 7 and their assets. The plaintiff will be entitled to cost through out the proceedings.