IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 SA.NO. 222 OF 1997(B) --------------------- {AS.9/1993 OF THE SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM IN OS.17/1992 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM} .................... APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF): ------------------------------------------ KUMARAN VAIDHYAR, AGED 63 YEARS, SON OF KRISHNAN VAIDHYAR, RESIDING AT VANIAMKULAM AMSOM, PALACHITHARA DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.PRABHA R.MENON RESPONDENT(S)/(RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT): ---------------------------------------------------- SAIDALAVI, AGED 50 YEARS, SON OF PALAPPUZHA KUNHIMOIDU, RESIDES AT PANAMANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, IN OTTAPPALAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- S.A.NO.222 of 1997 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in a suit for money is the appellant. Suit claim was based on a negotiable instrument, a promissory note. Execution of the promissory note was denied by the defendant in his written statement. Among others it was contended he had a money transaction with the plaintiff earlier, but it was discharged by instalment payments. 2. The trial court, after considering the materials tendered, coming to the conclusion that the execution of the promissory note has not been proved by convincing evidence, non-suited the plaintiff. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff was unsuccessful with the first appellate court, after re-appreciation of the evidence, concurring with the view taken by the trial S.A.NO.222 of 1997 :: 2 :: court. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal impeaching the concurrent decisions rendered by the two courts below. 3. Going though the memorandum of appeal, with regard to the judgments rendered by the two inferior courts, it is noticed that other than contending that on the basis of the contentions raised by the defendant the burden was on him to show that the note had not been executed by him, no question of law had been raised to entertain this appeal. Suit claim is for a sum of Rs.3,000/-under the promissory note. Perusing the plaint, it is seen, the claim is solely based on the promissory note and not on a case of original consideration advanced to the defendant. Leaving aside the concurrent finding entered by the court below that despite the denial of the execution of the promissory note it has not been proved the entertainability of the appeal challenging the S.A.NO.222 of 1997 :: 3 :: concurrent decision has to be looked into with reference to Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-section (4) of Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure places an interdiction against entertaining an appeal from any decree from any suit cognizable by a court of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs.3,000/-, except on a question of law. Sum fixed previously at Rs.3,000/- barring an appeal as indicated under the amended Act has been raised to Rs.10,000/-. The ground canvassed in the memorandum of appeal, and also at the time of hearing that on the facts involved in the case, the burden was on the defendant to disprove the money transaction as he had set up a plea of discharge by payment in instalment, after denying the execution of the promissory note, cannot be considered as a question of law as the suit claim is based on S.A.NO.222 of 1997 :: 4 :: promissory note, and that alone. I find, the present appeal wherein the subject matter is only for a sum of Rs.3,000/-, the statutory interdiction barring the entertainability of the appeal, except on a question of law, as covered under Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, applies with full force. On merits also, after perusing the records, I find no scope for interference, and there is nothing to indicate that there is any miscarriage of justice by the concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below. Appeal is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.