IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2007 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 AS.No. 800 of 1994() -------------------- OS.148/1992 of SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS: ----------- 1. K.M.VALSALA, W/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT M-6G/64, HOUSING COLONY, P.O.MALAPARAMBA, CALICUT 2. 2. M.KUMARAN, S/O.CHERIYA KUNKAN (LATE), RESIDING AT -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN, SHRI K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------- M.T.BHASKARAN, S/O.CHOYIKUTTY M.T., MANAGING PARTNER, JAWAN FINANCE, LIVING AT MAVILI THAZHE HOUSE, KORAPUZHA P.O., VENGALAM, QUILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 5/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- A.S.No.800 of 1994 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of December, 2007 JUDGMENT The plaintiffs in O.S.No.148/1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Koyilandy are the appellants. Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the court below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for money. Plaint averments are as follows: The respondent/defendant and first appellant/first plaintiff were partners of a firm by name 'Javan Finance' which was engaged in money lending business. They entered into a deed of partnership on 8.2.1990 and on account of difference of opinion the firm was dissolved with effect from 26.3.1992. Ext.A4 deed of dissolution was executed to this effect. Original of Ext.A4 was entrusted with the respondent and the appellants were having only a copy of the same which was attested by a gazetted officer. The respondent is liable to pay an amount of Rs.95,620/- to the appellants The respondent had paid Rs.40,000/- and Rs.25,163/- on 2.4.1992 and 3.6.1992 respectively and the balance amount was due. Hence the suit for money. 2. The respondent/defendant admitted execution of the partnership deed on 8.2.1990. It was contended that the first appellant was only a name lender. Actually business was conducted by the second appellant. The respondent was only an employee under him and he signed the document as demanded by the second appellant. The averment that dissolution deed was executed on 26.3.1992 AS No.800/1994 -: 2 :- was denied. It was also averred that he did not sign any document but there was some signed blank papers which he had entrusted with the second appellant and using one of these signed blank papers Ext.A4 was executed. The averment that the original of Ext.A4 was entrusted with the respondent was denied. The averment that he repaid Rs.65,163/- was also denied. Trial court found that Ext.A4 was a fabricated document and the entire case put forward by the appellants were false. The court below dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have filed this appeal challenging the decree and judgment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the respondent had admitted execution of partnership deed and at the time of dissolution, on account of his insistence the original of Ext.A4 dissolution deed was entrusted with him. It is submitted that Ext.A4 is a duly attested photocopy of the original and the same is admissible in evidence. Trial court found that the appellants ought to have either produced the original of Ext.A4 or ought to have taken some steps for the production of original of Ext.A4. Apart from producing a photocopy the appellants had not taken any steps for production of the original of Ext.A4. In view of the assertion made by the respondent that that is a fabricated document the appellants ought to have examined at least one of the attestors of that document. Going by the dates Ext.A4 might have been executed on 2.6.1992. It was attested on 4.6.1992. There is no endorsement in the document to the effect that the person who certified the same as true copy compared the copy with the AS No.800/1994 -: 3 :- original and the copy was found to be the true copy of the original which he had seen. Though the appellants examined PWs 1 and 2 to prove the transaction the trial court for valid reasons disbelieved the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. The trial court found that PWs 1 and 2 cannot be treated as independent witnesses. The court below after appreciating the oral evidence and documentary evidence found that the appellants failed to establish that the amount claimed in the plaint was due from the respondent. That is a finding of fact based on good evidence. I do not find any reason to interfere with that finding of fact. There is no merit in the appeal. It is only to be dismissed. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks AS No.800/1994 -: 4 :- K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. A.S.No.800 of 1994 JUDGMENT 5th December, 2007.