IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 RSA.No. 957 of 2008() --------------------- OS.215/2004 of MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... APPELLANT/ APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------- THOMAS.N.JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, NJALLANIYIL HOUSE, CHEMPALAM P.O., KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE, UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------- JOSHY THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, VAZHAVELLIL HOUSE, CHIRAKKADAVU KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO. 2213 OF 2008 IN R.S.A. NO. 957 OF 2008 DISMISSED SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID,JUDE 08.06.2009 HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A.No. 957 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The sole defendant in O.S. 215/2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court Kanjirappally is the appellant This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Sub court Pala in A.S. 13/2006 . The suit was filed for realisation of Rs. 23,500/- The trial court passed a money decree allowing the plaintiff to realise Rs. 20,730/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30.5.2004 till the date of suit and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation from the defendants. The lower appellate court confirmed the said decree. The parties hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the suit. 2. The recovery of money was sought based upon the exchange of two vehicles between the plaintiff and defendant.. The exchange took place on 30.5.2004 as agreed by the parties. In addition, the defendant also agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the plaintiff . The agreement was marked as Ext.A1 . The defendant disputed the execution of Ext.A1 agreement and also contended that the agreement was oral. 3. The plaintiff who was examined as PW1 gave evidence to the effect that Ext.A1 was executed by the defendant. PW2 who is an attesting witness to Ext.A1 also gave evidence to the effect that Ext.A1 R.S.A. No. 957 of 2008 -2- was executed by the plaintiff and the defendant. The trial court observed that a perusal of Ext.A1 shows that the purported signature of the defendant that appears in Ext.A1 was similar to the admitted signature in Ext.B1 complaint and Ext.B2 cheque. The defendant also contended that he has repaid Rs.20,000/- vide Ext.B2 which was disbelieved by the trial court on evidence. It is not disputed that as per terms of exchange the defendant had to pay Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff. The trial court relying on the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 convinced that ExtA1 was executed by the defendant himself and the plea of discharge was disbelieved. The decree passed by the trial court was confirmed by the lower appellate court. I am of the view that the findings arrived at by the courts below on the basis of facts proved by the respective parties. I find no reasons to interfere with the findings entered by the courts below. No question of law much less any substantial questions of law arises for consideration in this appeal. There is no scope for invoking Section 100 of the C.P.C. This appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- R.S.A.No. 957 of 2008 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 8th June, 2009