IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 RSA.No. 909 of 2009() --------------------- AS.137/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.454/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------- SHAJI, S/O.GEORGE, PANDAKASALA VEEDU,VADAKKUMTHALA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------- V.PRASANNAN, SARIGA BHAVAN,KALLELIBHAGOM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.909 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S.No.454 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.137 of 2006 on the file of the District Court, Kollam. The suit for realisation of money was decreed by the trial court directing the appellant to the pay a sum of Rs.32,300/- with interest. The decree passed by the trial court was confirmed in appeal. Hence the second appeal. 2. It is the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff and defendant are friends. On 14/1/2001 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant executed a document agreeing to repay the amount by two equal instalments of Rs.20,000/- each. The first instalment was payable on or before 25/3/2001 and the next by on or before 25/5/2001. However the defendant had paid Rs.13,000/- to the plaintiff and the balance due is Rs.27,000/-. Hence the suit for realisation of the above said amount. R.S.A.No.909 of 2009 2 3. The defendant denied the transaction. According to him the document relied on by the plaintiff is a fabricated document. On 27/1/2002 the plaintiff and three identifiable persons came to the house of the defendant in two motor cycles. By force and under threat he affixed his signature in a blank paper. It is also contended that there is no money transaction between the defendant and the plaintiff. 4. The trial court examined the respective contentions of the parties in the light of the evidence tendered by Pws.1, 2, Dws.1 to 5, Exts.A1 to A3, Exts.B1, B2, Ext.C1 and Exts.X1 to X5. The trial court after examining the evidence on record held that the inconsistant stand of the defendant as DW.1 shows that he is not a witness of truth. The conduct of DW.1 was also examined and discussed. The trial court disbelieve the defendants witness and repelled his contentions. The court also examined the contention raised by the defendant that he had affixed his signature in Ext.A1 document under threat and coercion. The trial court held that Dw.3 and DW.5 the witnesses to the alleged occurrences are really interested witnesses and their testimony cannot be taken into account at all. Thus the two contentions R.S.A.No.909 of 2009 3 raised by the defendant are rightly repelled by the trial court and further held that defendant is not entitled to compensation as prayed for in his counter claim. The trial court also held that on evidence that Ext.A1 is a genuine document supported by consideration and therefore the plaintiff has got every right to realise the plaint amount from the defendant. 5. The appellate court also considered the contention of the appellants and held that the contentions are devoid of merit and further examined the claim of the plaintiff and held that he is entitled to succeed. The appellate court also agreed with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the contentions before this court. This court after examining the reasonings and findings of the fact finding court, is of the view that a different view is not possible in the given circumstances. More over this is the case which was decided solely on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and the findings are rests on facts only. I find that this is not a case where this court shall exercise jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for R.S.A.No.909 of 2009 4 consideration in this appeal. Hence this appeal fails and accordingly dismissed in limine. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE skj.