IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 RSA.No. 1104 of 2007() ---------------------- AS.212/2006 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.607/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... : APPELLANT/APPELLANT/2ND DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------------- E.R.SARASWATHY AMMA, PUTHUVEETTIL (UPASANAYIL), MOTTACKAL MURI, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF AND ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. BHASKARAN PILLAI, GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, THAZHAKOTHAMANGALATHU, NADUVILAKKARA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE-690 524. 2. MADHAVAN PILLAI, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, PUTHUVEETTIL KIZHAKKATHIL, MOTTACKAL MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE-690 524. 3. KOMALAVALLY, D/O.SARASWATHY AMMA, MANJUNATHA VILASAM FROM PUTHUVEETTIL KIZHAKKATHIL, MOTTACKAL MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE-690 524. 4. SHYAMALAVALLY AMMA @ BABUJI, D/O.SARASWATHY AMMA, MANJUNATHA VILASAM FROM PUTHUVEETTIL KIZHAKKATHIL, MOTTACKAL MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE-690 524. BY THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2296/2007 IN R.S.A.1104/2007 6.2.2008 DISMISSED Sd/- M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge P.S. To Judge M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== R.S.A. NO. 1104 OF 2007 =========================== Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Second defendant in O.S.607/2000 on the file of Munsiff Court, Karunagappally is the appellant. First respondent is the plaintiff and other respondents the other defendants. First respondent instituted a suit for realisation of Rs.20,000/- with interest due under Ext.A1 promissory note. According to first respondent, deceased Raviharan pillai borrowed Rs.20,000/- from respondent and executed Ext.A1 promissory note on 12.12.1998, agreeing to repay the same with interest on demand. Raviharan Pillai died on 19.7.1999. Appellant is his widow. First defendant was the mother. Respondents 2 to 4 were subsequently impleaded as defendants 3 to 5 being legal heirs of deceased first defendant. Appellant resisted the suit contending that Raviharan Pillai did not borrow any amount from first respondent and did not execute R.S.A.1104/2007 2 Ext.A1 promissory note and was not liable to pay any amount. It was contended that after the death of Raviharan Pillai other respondents are not in good terms with appellant and first respondent is acting as a stooge of the mother-in-law and the suit is frivolously instituted. 2. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A4(a) and Exts.B1 and B2 accepted the case of first respondent and found that deceased Raviharan Pillai borrowed Rs.20,000/- and executed Ext.A1 promissory note and it was not repaid and first respondent is therefore entitled to realise the same from the estate left by the deceased Raviharan Pillai in the hands of appellant and other respondents. Appellant challenged the judgment before District Court, Kollam in A.S.212/2006. Before first appellate court appellant reiterated the prayer to sent Ext.A1 to an expert for comparison of the signature seen in Ext.A1 with the signature seen in Ext.B2. Learned District Judge found that alleged R.S.A.1104/2007 3 signature of deceased in Ext.B2 was not proved and the signature seen in Ext.A1 cannot be compared with Ext.A1. Learned District Judge on reappreciation of evidence of PW1 to 3 confirmed the findings of learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant was heard. 4. The argument of the learned counsel is that courts below should have sent Ext.A1 to an expert before deciding the question whether Ext.A1 was a genuine promissory note executed by Raviharan Pillai. Learned counsel argued that Ext.A1 is a conconcted one and Courts below should not have accepted the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 to uphold Ext.A1. It was also argued that evidence of DW1 should have been accepted and it should have found that under Ext.A1 promissory note first respondent is not entitled to the decree granted. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find that any substantial question of law is R.S.A.1104/2007 4 involved in the appeal. 6. Ext.A1 promissory note is seen executed by deceased Raviharan Pillai on 12.12.1998. The question is whether Ext.A1 was executed by deceased Raviharan Pillai. Ext.A1 is seen attested by two witnesses out of which PW2 was examined. The scribe was also examined as PW3. Learned Munsiff as well as learned District Judge on appreciating the evidence of Pws. 2 and 3 found that inspite of the cross examination their credibility was not destroyed and they are trustworthy witnesses. It was found that Rs.20,000/- was received by deceased from first respondent in the presence of Pws.2 and 3 and Ext.A1 was executed. That finding of fact concurrently rendered by courts below on reappreciation of evidence, cannot be interfered by reappreciating the evidence as sought for by learned counsel. Though learned counsel vehemently argued that signature seen in Ext.A1 is different from the signature seen in Ext.B2 and therefore Ext.A1 is to be sent to an expert for comparison, R.S.A.1104/2007 5 as rightly found by courts below, alleged signature of deceased in Ext.B2 was not proved before the court below. In such circumstance, in the absence of substantial questions of law, appeal is dismissed in limine. It is made clear that appellant is liable only to the extent of the estate of her deceased husband left with her. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006