IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 SA.No. 893 of 2002(F) --------------------- AS.34/2002 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI OS.402/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT IN A.S.& PLAINTIFF IN O.S. ------------------------------------------------ AHAMMED SALEEM, S/O. AREEKKAD KUNHALI HAJI, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, TRIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT IN A.S. & RESPONDENT IN O.S. ----------------------------------------------------------- KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.JOSHI, SC, KHADI BOARD FOR R1 THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------ S.A No. 893 of 2002 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 402/1998 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Manjeri. The plaintiff filed suit for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to receive bank guarantee for Rs. 25,000/- and to return assignment and the solvency certificate . On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence the trial court held that the liability of the plaintiff on the basis of Ext.X4 is subject to the terms mentioned in Ext.X3. Therefore the trial court passed a decree directing the defendant to return the title deed to the plaintiff on deposit Rs. 25,000/- with the defendant within one month from the date of the judgment. The parties herein referred as the plaintiff/appellant and respondent/defendant. 2. In the appeal filed by the defendant Board, the appellate court again re-appreciated and interpreted the documents. The learned judge took the view that, what is intended by the parties discernible from Ext. X3 and X4, is that the respondent and his properties including the property covered by the assignment deed in question shall be security for whatever amount payable by the principal debtor to the appellant. The S.A. No. 893 /2003 2 learned judge observed that, merely for the reason that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is referred in Ext. X3, no inference is possible that the liability is limited to the said sum. The learned judge also observed that the respondent having offered security vide Ext X3 and X4 to whatever sum due to the Board from principal debtor, it is idle for him to contend that his liability is only to the extent of Rs.25,000/- In the circumstances the learned judge rejected the contention of the plaintiff. 3. I have also repeatedly gone through the documents referred by the courts below. I am also of the view that the interpretation made by the learned appellate judge is correct. Therefore I find no reason to interfere with the decree and judgment passed by the lower appellate court dismissing the suit. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal In the result, this second appeal fails; it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es