IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 RSA.No. 605 of 2010() ----------------------------- AS.226/2004 of ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA OS.73/1999 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANTS/ APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------ 1. K.E.NINAN, ANITHA BHAVAN, MAVILA WARD, ANCHAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. LILLYKUTTY NINAN, W/O.K.E.NINAN. DO. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANDAS SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF: ------------------------- M.PHILIPOSE, DELIGHT BUNGLOW EZHAMKULAM MURI & VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- R.S.A No. 605 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Relying on two Division Bench decisions namely Madapillil Brothers Vs. Ullattil Agencies [2006 (4) KLT 196] and Velayudhan Vs. Velayudhan [2001 (1) KLT 392] the appellant has chosen to assail the order passed by the court below against him. The courts below passed a decree against the appellant. The facts and parties hereinafter referred to as are available before the trial court. 2. The suit was one for money. According to the plaintiff, the defendants executed A1 promisory note for Rs.1,50,000/- on 15.3.1998. In spite of the several demands for the amount the same was not repaid and hence the suit., 3. Defendants resisted the suit. Defendants denied that they had received any amount from the plaintiff. It is pointed out that plaintiff had managed to obtain signed blank papers from the defendants. According to the defendants, first defendant had R.S.A No. 605 of 2010 2 subscribed two chittes with the concern by name Alummoottil Chits and Financiers. The first defendant auctioned that chitty and the amount was handed over by the manager of the said firm and obtained signature of the defendants on two blank papers with revenue stamps. According to the defendants, the said documents have been manipulated by the plaintiff in this case. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1and PW2 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked from the side of the plaintiff. Defendants had examined DW1 to DW3 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked. 5. On an appreciation of evidence the trial court came to the conclusion that the story putforward by the defendants was not acceptable and plaintiff had succeeded in proving the execution of the promisory note as alleged in the plaint. Accordingly, the decree was granted in favour of the plaintiff. R.S.A No. 605 of 2010 3 6. The defendants carried the matter in appeal as A.S.226 of 2004 before the before the District Court, Pathanamthitta. The District Court after independent evaluation of the evidence in the case found that the finding of the trial court is supported by the evidence on record and dismissed the appeal. Hence the Second Appeal. 7. Before this Court, the main contention taken up is that the courts below had not properly considered the evidence on record and that had resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to the learned counsel, it is quite evident that promisory note is a manipulated one and has not been executed by the defendants as alleged by the plaintiff. Plaintiff relies on the decision of this Court in Madapillil Brothers Vs. Ullattil Agencies [2006 (4) KLT 196] and Velayudhan Vs. Velayudhan [2001 (1) KLT 392] 8. It is to be noticed that both the courts below considered the matter in extenso and had come to the conclusion that contentions taken up by the defendants are without merits. Both the courts have discussed the evidence and have not acceptable the contentions of R.S.A No. 605 of 2010 4 defendants for cogent reasons. The courts below found that it is highly improbable that the manager of the chitty concerned would have gone to the house of the defendants to procure her signature on a blank paper. Both courts found in favour of the plaintiff. The evidence of DW1 was carefully read and document was perused by the courts below. Several reasons are given to disbelieve DW2 and 3. Reasons given appears to be convincing enough. It is therefore not correct to say that the evidence of DWs 2 and 3 has not been considered by the courts below. The lower appellate court had also taken the aid of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to contend that promisory note is in fact supported by consideration. 9. Both the court below considered the evidence of the plaintiff as well as witnesses and found that they are acceptable and trustworthy. Relying on the reasons given by the courts, I come to the conclusion that promisory note was executed by the defendants and that they have received the amount. This is based on convincing reasons and on an appreciation of evidence adduced in the case. R.S.A No. 605 of 2010 5 Findings are especially questions of facts. No question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma R.S.A No. 605 of 2010 6