IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 AS.No. 211 of 1999() -------------------- OS.185/1994 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S)/1ST DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------- DAMODARAN, S/O GOPALAN, KARAPARAMBA, MONOVILLA HOUSE, KARUVESSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFFS: -------------------------------------- 1. A. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, S/O KORUKURUP, RESIDING AT NHARATTMALAYIL HOUSE, PULIKKAL AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 2. P. MURALEEDHRAN, S/O KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR, AMBALATHODY HOUSE, PULIKKAL AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 3. P. GIRISH, S/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KAMALALAYAM, PULIKKAL AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 4. K. RAJAN, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, PULIKKAL AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO. 211 OF 1999 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel on admission. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.185/94 of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode. The suit was one for realisation of an amount of Rs.15,000/- each in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs the first defendant had obtained a sum of Rs.15,000/- each promising to get visa for these four persons and on his failure to do so when a demand was made for the return of money four cheques were issued which when presented was not honoured and thereafter it was revalidated. Subsequently he along with his wife entered into an agreement and also handed over the photocopy of the title deed to the plaintiffs. In spite of notice the amount was not paid hence the suit. 2. On the other hand the defendants would contend that the first defendant has no such transaction with the A.S. NO. 211 OF 1999 -2- plaintiffs and there was a promise to procure visa to gulf country by one Sreekumar Vellody and Rs.15,000/- each was collected by Sreekumar from the plaintiffs. Sreekumar visited the hotel of the first defendant in which one Varingam Ranganath was also a partner. In pursuance of a mediation talk the receipts were returned and the visa could not be arranged. It is the definite case of the first defendant that the blank signed cheques kept by the first defendant was handed over by this Ranganath and the defendants had been coerced to sign the blank stamp papers by the plaintiffs. Therefore they pray for dismissal of the suit. 3. In the lower Court PW1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B4 were marked and on an analysis of the evidence the trial court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. It is against that decision the first defendant has come up in appeal. 4. The first point that was considered by the lower Court was whether the whole transaction is against public policy as contemplated under Section 23 of the Indian A.S. NO. 211 OF 1999 -3- Contract Act. Plaintiffs had specifically stated the amount was paid towards the expenses for the purpose of getting visa and there was no illegality in the said payment. Nobody has got a case that it was an illegal transaction and therefore the Court below after taking into consideration the provisions of the Emigration Act as well held that there is nothing against public policy and therefore repelled the contention of the defendants. 5. Now comes the important question regarding the transaction. Exts.A1 to A4 are the cheques drawn in the account of the first defendant. These cheques were issued and it is the case of the plaintiffs it was towards the discharge of liability and which when presented for encashment bounced back and on further demand they were redated as 23.9.93. But the case of the first defendant is to the effect that it is one Sreekumar who had taken the money from the plaintiffs and he was a person who used to visit the hotel conducted by he first defendant and one Ranganath. According to him the said Ranganath had handed over these blank signed cheques of the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and he had nothing to A.S. NO. 211 OF 1999 -4- do with the suit transaction. What was the necessity for Ranganath to hand over the blank signed cheques to the plaintiffs is still a misery and it cannot be believed at all. 6. Then the defendant would contend that revalidation is a fabricated story. Admittedly there had been consultation and mediation and so one cannot find fault with the plaintiffs in getting the cheque revalidated. If really the first defendant has nothing to do with the transaction there is no necessity at all for him to convene and participate in the conversation of others. To crown all these things it has to be stated that an agreement is also executed by handing over a photocopy of the title deed of the property which belonged to the 2nd defendant. But the first defendant would contend that it is also a fabricated document and Mr.Ranganath has given blank signed papers which has been utilized for the purpose of creating a document. In such a situation PW2 a witness to the agreement was cited and examined and the trial court found that nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to discard his evidence and therefore on a cumulative analysis of A.S. NO. 211 OF 1999 -5- the entire materials would reveal that the defence set up by the defendants are not true whereas the plaintiffs' case is supported by cheque and agreement. Therefore I do not find any materials to interfere with the decision rendered by the trial court. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed without costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- A.S. NO. 211 OF 1999 -6- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO. 211 OF 1999 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 15th January, 2009.