IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 RSA.No. 696 of 2009() --------------------- AS.162/2005 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY OS.137/2004 of MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------- K.N.BHANUMATHI, D/O.LATE PADMANABHAN NAIR, (RETD.VILLAGE OFFICER), AGE 59 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT "SHREYAS", MANANTHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.MANANTHERI, THALASSERI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/PLAINATIFF ------------------------------------ K.P.VISWANATHAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 51 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT 'SINJITHAM', PATTIAM AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.PATHAYAKUNNU, THALASSERI TALUK. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A.No. 696 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S No. 162 of 2005 on the file of the Sub court, Thalassery which arises from the judgment and decree in O.S. No.137/2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba. The suit for money was decreed by the trial court and confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. Hence the second appeal. The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The parties hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the suit. 2. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant borrowed Rs 40,000/- on 3.1.2004 agreeing to repay the same within one month and that the defendant failed to repay the said amount as agreed. It is also submitted by the plaintiff that when, the cheque issued by the defendant , was presented for encashment the same was dishonoured by the bank. According to him in the above said circumstances he is constrained to file the suit to recover the plaint amount of Rs. 40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, she denied the transaction and contended that there was absolutely no occasion for R.S.A. No. 696 of 2009 -2- issuing any cheque in favour of the plaintiff. According to the defendant she is not liable for the cheque amount and that the cheque was lost from her possession and she reported the fact to her bankers. It is also contended by her that the cheque might have fallen into the hands of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff wanted to compel the defendant to part with plaint amount. 4. The plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A8 were marked on his side. The defendant was examined as DW1 and Exts B1 to B2 were marked on her side. 5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties , the trial court held that the transaction alleged by the plaintiff is true and that the contentions raised by the defendant in that regard are absolutely false and baseless. The trial court on evidence also found that the case of the defendant with respect to the loss of the cheque is absolutely false and baseless and entered the positive finding that the cheque was issued to the plaintiff by the defendant. All the questions raised by the plaintiff in the suit were answered by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the plaint amount with interest @ 6 % per annum( pendentelite and future) 6. The very same contentions were re-agitated before the lower appellate court by the defendant/appellant. The lower appellate court R.S.A. No. 696 of 2009 -3- agreed with the findings of the trial court and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. I have heard the contentions of the defendant/ appellant and plaintiff/respondent respectively and examined the evidence adduced by them. I find that the conclusions arrived at by the courts below are based on facts, evidence and circumstances. I fully agree with the findings entered by the courts below. No other view is possible in the given circumstances other than the views taken by the courts below. No grounds are made out by the defendant/appellant to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C.P.C. No questions of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. This appeal fails and dismissed in limine. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- R.S.A. No. 696 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 16th July, 2009