IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 RSA.No. 684 of 2008() --------------------- AS.99/2001 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR OS.163/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ----------------------------- P. PADMANABHAN, AGED 53, S/O. LATE RAMAN ANTHITHIRIYUN, GOLDSMITH, PATOLI HOUSE, LEKHA NIVAS, P.O. PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------- T.V. RAGHAVAN, S/O. CHANDU, BUSINESS, P.O. PAYYANNUR. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * R.S. A. NO. 684 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 30-09-2008 JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S. 163 of 1999 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur is the appellant in A.S. No. 99 of 2001. The said suit instituted by the respondent herein is one for realisation of a sum of Rs. 45,000/- with interest thereon due under Ext.A1 cheque dated 30-12-1998 drawn by the defendant on his account with the Payyannur Branch of the Federal Bank . 2. Both the courts have decreed the suit as prayed for after rejecting the defence set up by the appellant. 3. The case as put forward by the plaintiff and accepted by the courts below is as follows:- On 10-7-1997 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from him by cash. On 22-7-1997 the defendant borrowed another amount of Rs. 15,000/- as per a cheque. On 20-10-1997 the defendant again borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as per another cheque. He altogether borrowed a sum of Rs. 45,000/- on three R.S.A. No. 684 of 2008 -:2:- occasions mentioned above and later issued Ext.A1 cheque in discharge of the above debt which he owed towards the plaintiff. Exts. A5 (a) is a cheque dated 22-07-1997 and A5 (b) is the cheque dated 20-10- 1997. Ext.A1 cheque was subsequently presented before the drawee bank. It was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the defendant. The contention of the defendant that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- only from the plaintiff for the purpose of the marriage of his daughter in June 1996 and he repaid Rs. 12500/- in two installments but could not pay the balance amount of Rs. 7,500/- and in the mediation talk which took place on 24-7-1998, Ext.B1 settlement was entered into and in terms of the said settlement Ext.B2 agreement for sale in respect of defendant's property was executed in favour of his 10 creditors including the plaintiff, was rejected by the Courts below. 4. Both the courts below have held that the said story set up by the defendant is false. The courts below have believed the oral testimony of P.W.1 as well as the evidence of the bank manager examined as P.W.2 in preference to the interested testimony of the defendant/appellant examined as DW1. No question of R.S.A. No. 684 of 2008 -:3:- law, much less, any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The questions formulated at page 7 of the memorandum of appeal do not arise for consideration in view of the findings recorded by the courts below. This Second Appeal accordingly dismissed in limine. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.