IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 AS.No. 335 of 1998() -------------------- OS.175/1992 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF:- --------------------------- LOUIS K. SEBASTIAN, KALATHU PUTHEN PURAYIL, ATTUVATHALA KAINAKARY, KUTTANAD, ALLEPPEY. BY ADV. MR. V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT:- -------------------------------- BEENA J. KANDATHIL PARAMBU, SANATHANAM WARD, ALLEPPEY. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== A.S. No. 335 of 1998 ========================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S. No. 175 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha is the appellant in this appeal. The said suit was one for a recovery of a sum of Rs.48,400/- being the principal amount of Rs.40,000/- with 18% interest due thereon allegedly due under Ext.A1 promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant on 16.05.1991. The defendant disputed the alleged borrowal as well as the execution of Ext.A1 promissory note including the signature therein. Except the interested testimony of PW1 and his witness examined as PW2 who is not a signatory to Ext.A1, no other evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to probabalise the loan transaction set up by him. The defendant, besides disputing the borrowal as well as Ext.A1, mounted the witness box and spoke in terms of her case. The court below compared the admitted signature of the defendant marked as Ext.X1 with the disputed signature in Ext.A1 and came to the conclusion that there was no resemblance between the two signatures. The court below was entitled to do so in A.S. No. 335/1998 : 2 : view of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to take steps to get expert evidence regarding the signature in Ext.A1. No steps in that direction were taken by the plaintiff. The trial Judge who had the unique advantage of seeing the witnesses and assessing their credibility, was not inclined to accept the testimony of PWs 1 and 2. This Court sitting in appeal will be loathe to interfere with the conclusion reached by the trial court, unless this Court finds some infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Judge. (See Madhusudan Das v. Narayani Bai and others - AIR 1983 SC 114). I find no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Judge. Under these circumstances, this appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv A.S. No. 335/1998 : 3 : V. RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------ A.S. No.335 of 1998 ---------------------------------------- 1st day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT A.S. No. 335/1998 : 4 :