IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 RSA.No. 297 of 2009() --------------------- AS.212/2005 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.135/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------- T.V.KURIAKOSE, S/O.VARKEY, THANNIKKOTTE HOUSE, PANNIYANKARA P.O., PANTHALAMPADAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT: PLAINTIFF: ------------------------- GEORGE, S/O.ITTAPPIRI AGRICULTURIST, ORATHUKUDI HOUSE, MANNAMPARAMBU, VADAKKANCHERY ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A No.297 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT The sole defendant in O.S No.135/2000 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Alathur is the appellant. The parties herein after referred to as defendant/appellant and plaintiff/respondent. In the suit for money filed by the plaintiff, the trial court passed a decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 44,100/-(Rupees Forty four thousand and one hundred only) to the plaintiff with future interest @ 12% per annum upon the principal sum of Rs. 35,000/-. The said findings are confirmed by the lower appellate court . Aggrieved by the finding of the lower appellate court the defendant filed this Regular Second Appeal .. 2. The Plaintiff's case is that he had advanced a sum of rupees 35,000/- to the defendant on 24.3.1998 as a loan. On the same day the defendant executed a promissory note for the loan amount promising to repay the same with 12% interest per annum, on demand, in favour of the plaintiff. Since the amount was not paid as promised, the above said suit was filed by the plaintiff for realisation of the loan amount. 3. The defendant in the written statement denied the loan transaction and the alleged execution of the promissory note. According to him, he and the plaintiff were partners and doing business jointly, that a cheque leaf was stolen from his custody by the plaintiff and that the R.S.A. 297 of 2009 -2- promissory note produced by the plaintiff was a forged one. The defendant therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 , the scribe as PW2 and the promissory note was marked as Ext.A1. The defendant was examined as DW1. Ext.C1 is the expert opinion submitted by the Handwriting and Finger print expert. 5. The trial court examined and discussed in detail the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides and the facts and circumstances leading to the execution of Ext.A1 Promissory note. The trial court finds that the evidence of PW1 concerning due execution of Ext.A1 by the defendant and the availing of loan stands corroborated by the evidence of PW2 . The trial court also considered the oral evidence tendered by PWs1 and 2 along with Ext.C1 Expert's opinion. Ext. C1 is also accompanied by photographs of admitted and disputed writings and signatures taken by the Expert for comparison. Besides the above the Expert has outlined 26 reliable reasons for concluding that the defendant is the author of both disputed and admitted writings and signatures. The trial court for reasons stated in the judgment accepted the Expert's opinion and concluded that the defendant had availed a loan of Rs. 35,000/- from the plaintiff and in consideration thereof, he had executed Ext.A1 promissory note undertaking to repay the same with 12% interest. Very same contentions were also raised by the defendant R.S.A. 297 of 2009 -3- before the lower appellate court . The lower appellate court also examined the issues in the light of the contentions raised by both parties. The lower appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court finding that there were no reliable grounds made out by the defendant to interfere with the findings entered by the trial court. 6. I have examined the contentions of both the parties and gone through the reasons stated by the courts below. I am of the view that the conclusions arrived at by the courts below are correct and based on concrete evidence. I find no reliable grounds to invoke Section 100 of the C.P.C In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- R.S.A. No. 297 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 22nd May, 2009