IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 RSA.No. 431 of 2004() --------------------- AS.248/1998 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM OS.569/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY .................... (S): APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------------- H.M.KASSIM, REENA MANZIL, THURUTHEL, VAZHAPPALLY WEST MURI, VAZHAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------ KUTTANADU FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD., CHANGANACHERRY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.M.JOHN, MATTAKKATTU VEETTIL, THEKKEKARA KARA, CHAMPAKULAM VILLAGE. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.431 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.248 of 1998 on the file of the District Court, Kottayam. The defendant in O.S.No.569 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry is the appellant. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court which was confirmed in appeal. Hence this Second Appeal. 2. The suit was for realisation of Rs.34,400/- with future interest at the rate of 24%. According to the plaintiff, the defendant availed a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest and executed a promissory note on the same day. 3. The defendant contested the suit and put forward the plea of discharge. On the side of plaintiff PW1 was examined and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the defendant Dws.1 to 4 were examined and Ext.B1 was marked. Ext.X1 and X2 were also marked. The trial court elaborately considered the plea of discharge taken up by the defendant. The evidence of DW1, DW3, DW4 and Ext.A1 are considered and examined in R.S.A.No.431 of 2004 2 detail in order to find out whether the defendant has succeeded in proving the plea of discharge. The trial court disbelieved the oral evidence of DW1, DW.3 and DW4 and found that Ext.B1 pass book does not relate to the plaint transaction. Ultimately the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant has miserably failed to prove the plea of discharge and the same cannot be accepted in evidence and is only a concocted one. The decree passed for realisation of money as prayed in the suit does not call for any interference at all. The appellate court rightly judged the issues on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The appellate court also considered the contentions raised by the appellant/defendant and reached the same conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) skj.