IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 AS.No. 502 of 2002() -------------------- JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS.275/1995 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANTS: DEFENDANTS 1 & 3 ------------------------------ 1. SAIDU MOHAMMED ABDULKARIM, VADAKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, UZHUKUPARA, KUTTIANI MURI, VEMBAYAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MADHAVAN SADASIVAN, ALUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VATTAKKARIKKAKAM, MOLULIYAZHTHURA MURI, ULIYAZHTHURA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF/2ND DEFENDANT ------------------------------------ 1. SIVANKUTTY NAIR,S/O. RAMAN PILLAI, THADATHARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, VATTAKARIKKAKAM, PANTHALACODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ABOOBACKER K.V.ABDULLAH, KURAVATHU KIZHAKKEKARA VEEDU, KUNJUMANGALAM STREET, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, CANNANORE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS APPEAL SUIT HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.6170 OF 2002 IN AS NO.502 OF 2002 DISMISSED. 26.11.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A.S.No.502 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 26th November, 2008 JUDGMENT The defeated defendants in a suit for recovery of money are the appellants. The pleadings raised by the parties have been correctly narrated by the learned Subordinate Judge in his judgment and therefore I do not propose to narrate them over again. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge raised the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the defendants have received the amount from the plaintiff as alleged? 2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action against defendants 1 and 3? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the amount from the defendant as claimed and if so from which defendant? 4. What order as to relief and cost? At trial the evidence consisted of oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A7 on the side of the plaintiff and the testimony of D.W.1 and Ext.B1 on the side of the defendants. 2. Heard Mr.S.Rajasekharan Nair, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.G.S.Raghunath, learned counsel for the 1st A.S.No.502/02 - 2 - respondent. 3. Mr.Rajasekharan Nair would address me extensively and strenuously on all the grounds raised in the appeal memo. I was taken through the evidence available in the case. Mr.G.S.Raghunath would resist the submissions of Mr.Rajasekharan Nair. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and I have scanned and reappreciated the evidence on record. I am of the view that the findings entered by the learned Subordinate Judge are founded on evidence which is actually on record. Those findings cannot be said to be faulty. The relevant statutory provisions as well as principles relating to appreciation of evidence have been kept in mind correctly by the learned Judge. I do not find any warrant for interfering with the judgment and decree under appeal. The appeal fails and the same will stand dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, parties will suffer their costs in this appeal. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE