IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 RFA.No. 355 of 2011() ----------------------------- OS.138/2008 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/2ND DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------- ANTONY KURIAN,S/O.KURIAN,KANDRUMPACKAL HOUSE,MALOOSSERY.P.O,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.KISHOR B. SRI.A.K.GOPALAN RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF/IST DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,A BODY CORPORATE, CONSTITUTED UNDER AND GOVERNED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA(SUBSIDIARY BANKS ACT), HAVING IT'S HEAD OFFICE AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AND BRANCHES AT KANJIKKUZHY,KOTTAYAM. 2. FRANKLIN.P.KURIAN,AGED 14 YEARS, S/O.KURIAPAN,PORUTHUKARAN HOUSE,NATTAKOM.P.O, NATTAKOM VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- R.F.A.No.355 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.The second defendant in a suit for money instituted by a bank is the appellant. His plea before the court below were that he has no nexus to the loan transaction; that he had not availed the amount and that he had not executed any document in favour of the plaintiff bank. 2.The first defendant remained ex parte. 3.The plaintiff examined two witnesses and marked the document through the witnesses. PW1 denied all suggestive questions which were put on behalf of the second defendant projecting the defence that the second defendant had no RFA.355/11 2 nexus to the transaction. PW1 identified and proved the documents executed by the defendants. 4. The appellant second defendant did not mount the box to tender any oral evidence, even to impeach the documents which are proved through PW1. 5. Under such circumstances, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned decree and judgment, on the basis of the legal evidence recorded by the court below. The appeal fails. In the result, the RFA 0is dismissed in limine. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.30/6.