IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 RSA.No.181 of 2009 ----------------------- AS.120/1998 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM OS.516/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... APPELLANT(APPELLANT/DEFENDANT) --------------------------------------------- HAMSA, S/O.KODAKKADAN MOIDUKUTTY, MANATHUMANGALAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH RESPONDENT: (RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF) -------------------------------------------------- MOIDEEN, S/O.EZHUPOTHIYIL MOIDU, KOTHAKURUSSI AMSOM, EDAKKAD PAVUKKONAM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ R. S. A No.181 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Appellant is the defendant in O.S.516/97 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ottappalam and he has come up in R.S.A, he having lost his defence concurrently in both the courts below. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. 516/97 aforesaid for realisation of money from the appellant/defendant inter alia on the allegation that the latter undertook to arrange a visa to the plaintiff for employment in Gulf and it was agreed that Rs.50,000/- should be paid to the defendant for the above purpose; that accordingly Rs.10,000/- was paid as advance on 05/05/97 and the balance Rs.40,000/- was paid on 22/07/97; that the defendant agreed to get the visa for the plaintiff on or before 10/08/97; and that in case he fails to get the visa, he will repay R. S. A No.181 of 2009 -2- Rs.50,000/- on 10/08/97 and will compensate the plaintiff for all loss sustained to him on that account; that an agreement was executed on 22/07/97 incorporating the above conditions; that as per the agreement, in case the defendant fail to arrange the visa, he is to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- at the residence of the plaintiff at Edakkod; that the defendant failed to arrange visa as agreed and has not repaid the amount despite demand; and that therefore, on 30/08/97 a notice was issued to him through lawyer, but that was returned unclaimed and hence, the suit. 2. The appellant/defendant resisted the suit filing a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable; that the court below has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit; that the averments regarding the transactions that the defendant agreed to arrange the visa for the plaintiff to get R. S. A No.181 of 2009 -3- employment in Gulf and received Rs.10,000/- on 05/05/97 and Rs.40,000/- on 22/07/97 and that the defendant agreed to repay Rs.50,000/- on 10/08/97 etc. are all incorrect; that the defendant does not know the plaintiff; that the plaintiff had never contacted the defendant and there was no agreement between them; that the agreement is a concocted document; that there was a dispute between the defendant and one K.M.Sajimon regarding some financial matters and using political influence Sajimon attacked the defendant's house and against K.M.Saji one Orangodan Abdu and twenty five others, a writ petition was filed by the defendant; that the defendant is entitled to get Rs.57,000/- from the above Sajimon; that High Court ordered police protection to the defendant and also held that the defendant is not liable to be arrested and it is on the instigation of Sajimon and Abdu R. S. A No.181 of 2009 -4- that the suit is filed to harass the defendant; that Sajimon had threatened the defendant that he will be dragged to court and that the suit is filed on the instigation of the above Sajimon; that the defendant had not received the notice issued through lawyer and however, there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit has to be dismissed. 3. The trial court raised necessary issues for trial and considering the evidence adduced at trial which consisted of oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and DW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A3, decreed the suit with interest and costs. The appellant/defendant assailed the correctness of the decision of the trial court filing A.S.120/98 before the Sub Court, Ottapalam and vide judgment dt.23/09/08 the said appeal was dismissed by the appellate court confirming the judgment of the trial court and hence this R. S. A No.181 of 2009 -5- R.S.A. 4. It is vehemently contended before me by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no proper proof of execution of Ext.A1 agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as according to him, the signature of the defendant which was disputed should not have been accepted as his genuine signature without expert opinion having been obtained on a comparison of the signature in Ext.A1 with other admitted signatures of the defendant and that by reason of Section 65 of the Contract Act read with Section 23 of the Act, Ext.A1 agreement was one which was opposed to public policy and therefore, decree for recovery of the amount should not have been granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by the courts below. He also submitted that the appellant has a contention that the court below was having no territorial jurisdiction R. S. A No.181 of 2009 -6- to try the suit, but that he is not harping on that contention for the purpose of the R.S.A being got admitted. 5. The first contention that Ext.A1 should not have been accepted as one entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant when the defendant's affixing his signature therein was not proved in the absence of expert evidence comparing the signature. According to him, the court below has gone wrong in comparing the signatures though that is enabled under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Further, according to him, the comparison was however done by the trial court only and that in any event in case of slightest doubt, court should have referred the matter for expert opinion in view of the decision of this Court in Aravindakshan Nair K.R. v. Essen Bankers (ILR 2007 (3) Kerala 312). He has also invited my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in O.Bharathan R. S. A No.181 of 2009 -7- v. K.Sudhakaran and another (AIR 1996 SC 1140) wherein the Apex Court has held that in an election petition, comparing of disputed signatures on counterfoils of ballot papers by High Court Judges without aid of expert or person conversant with disputed signatures is illegal. The decision in O.Bharathan v. K.Sudhakaran and another (cited supra) has no application to the facts of this case. That was a case where the question of double voting was in issue and this Court proceeded to compare the signatures on counterfoils of the disputed votes cast by the persons who were complained of as having cast double votes. In the instant case, there was an agreement allegedly executed jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff has sworn to its execution by the defendant as well, when he was examined as PW1 and the second attestor to the agreement one Saidalavi is also examined as PW2 in proof of due R. S. A No.181 of 2009 -8- execution of Ext.A1 by the defendant. The defendant has not adduced any evidence to disprove the evidence so tendered by PW1 and PW2 apart from getting himself examined as DW1 to deny the execution. According to counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff should have applied for Ext.A1 agreement being forwarded for expert opinion. It is for the plaintiff to decide as to how he should prove a disputed agreement. The plaintiff has got examined himself as also got one of the attestors to Ext.A1 as PW2. Their evidence was found by the lower appellate court to be sufficient to prove due execution of Ext.A1 by the appellant/defendant. The defendant who has contended that he does not even know the plaintiff has no explanation as to how his visiting card Ext.A3 happened to be with the plaintiff and the notice Ext.A2 issued to the defendant has been returned with the report R. S. A No.181 of 2009 -9- unclaimed vide Annexure.A2(a). It is only on delivery of intimation regarding arrival of postal article and if the addressee does not receive the postal article despite intimation given that it is returned unclaimed. The casual explanation of the defendant that probably notice was brought over at a time when he was not there is not sufficient enough to dislodge the presumption that the notice was tendered at the address of the defendant, but was being returned undelivered for reason of the notice having not been claimed by the addressee/the defendant. 6. For the above reason, I am not prepared to accept the contention that there is no proof regarding execution by the defendant of Ext.A1 agreement with the plaintiff. 7. The contention that under Section 23 of the Contract Act, respondent/plaintiff is R. S. A No.181 of 2009 -10- not entitled to a decree as the object of the agreement was unlawful and opposed to public policy is also not tenable. There is no illegality in the agreement as such. A person receiving amounts from another on the promise that he will procure visa and on failure to obtain the visa within a specified date, he will return the amount is not an agreement which is unlawful as it is not forbidden by law nor would it defeat the provisions of any law and it cannot be said that it is either fraudulent or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another and no material is brought out for the courts to regard it as immoral or opposed to public policy. A person who receives amounts offering to render assistance to procure visa has necessarily to return the amount if he is not able to procure visa as promised. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the R. S. A No.181 of 2009 -11- appellant namely Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawazjung (1991) 3 SCC 67) has no application to the facts of this case. In that case, the agreement entered into between the parties was concurrently found by the courts below to be one intended to influence the Government authorities for private gains of the plaintiff and therefore, opposed to public policy and void. Such an agreement is not akin to the transaction in the instant case. Counsel for the appellant has also relied on the decision of this Court in Mohammed v. Rukkiya (1994(2) KLT 722). That was a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of property on the strength of title after he having created a tenancy in favour of the defendant after coming into force of KLR Act. Obviously, the tenancy was created in violation of Section 74 of the KLR Act. It was held therein that on the strength of the tenancy so created tenant R. S. A No.181 of 2009 -12- cannot raise a claim that he was entitled to have his tenancy terminated by a quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before plaintiff could move for recovery of property from his possession. On the other hand, it was held that the plaintiff suing on the strength of title is entitled to recover the property with mesne profits. The facts therein have no bearing as far as the facts of this case are concerned. I am of the view that there is no merit in the contentions advanced and that the defendant is not entitled to unlawful enrichment. After having received amounts from the plaintiff on the promise that he would procure visa, on having failed to procure visa he is bound to return the amount. The courts below have rightly concluded that there is proper proof of Ext.A1 and that the suit is not bad as claim is advanced on the basis of Ext.A1 which cannot be said to be one R. S. A No.181 of 2009 -13- opposed to public policy. Thus, there is no merit in this RSA and no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this R.S.A. 8. This R.S.A is hence, dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-