IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 AS.No. 895 of 1996() -------------------- OS.320/1992 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHAVAKKAD FARKA CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD.NO. F.1250, P.O.CHAVAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 54, S/O. AMMU AMMA, POOKOD AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. NALAKATH THOOMATT HAMSA, AGED 56 (BANK PRESIDENT), S/O. PUTHIYAVEETTIL MANKEDATH BEERAVU, ORUMANAYOOR AMSOM, DESOM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SRI.T.A. UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------- PANIKKAVEETTIL PADINJARAYIL AYYUNNI, AGED 51, S/O.RAYAM MARAKAR VEETTIL NALAKATH KHADER HAJI, ORUMANAYOOR AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.C.P.DAMODARAN NAYAR, SRI. D.KRISHNA PRASAD, SRI.JOJI VARGHESE, SRI.HARI SHARMA.M. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AS No.895 of 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 31st August 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. The defendants in a suit for recovery of money, are the appellants. 2. The plaintiff sued the first defendant – a Co- operative Bank on the strength of ExtA1 receipt of a short notice deposit. The receipt is dated 02.04.1980. According to the plaintiff, his father had deposited money in the name of the plaintiff and Ext.A1 was issued by the first defendant. The plea of the defendants was that Ext.A1 was not issued by the first defendant and that it could only be a mechanisation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff tendered evidence as PW1 in support of his version. He proved Ext.A1 as a document produced from his custody. It contains the signatures of a Clerk, an Accountant and a Secretary. It bears a seal and it is shown to have an AS No.895/96 2 Account number, a folio number and a date. It is a receipt, evidencing deposit of Rs.30,000/- as a short notice deposit repayable with interest @ 10% per annum. As against this document, the plea of the first defendant Bank is that the said receipt was not issued by the Bank and that there is no account in the Bank, which could be linked with any such receipt. 3. DW1, the present Secretary of the Bank gave evidence and attempted to show with the support of a ledger that no such receipt was issued by the Bank. However, the court below found that the totality of the evidence clearly established that Ext.A1 receipt was issued by the first defendant through its then Secretary late E.K.Francis. For this, the court below noticed Ext.A4 reply notice issued on behalf of the defendants, in answer to Ext.A3 suit notice. DW1, the present Secretary owned the contents of Ext.A4 inasmuch as Ext.A4 was proved and issued by the learned counsel on the basis of the instructions furnished by DW1. With this, the court below AS No.895/96 3 noticed that in Ext.A4, the stand taken by the Bank was that the plaintiff's father, Khader Haji used to deposit amounts in his own name and used to withdraw the interest accrued therefrom frequently and the alleged short notice deposit is seen written in the handwriting of the then Secretary late E.K.Francis. The Bank had contended in Ext.A4 that the Secretary was not expected to write the deposit receipts and the alleged receipt is a concocted and cooked up one, made by the plaintiff in collusion with the then Secretary late Francis. The present attempt of the defendants is to mulct the responsibility on late Francis, of having committed the mal practice in collusion with the plaintiff and the plaintiff's father Khader Haji. With these recitals in Ext.A4, the court below concluded inferentially that the defendants stand to admit that Ext.A1 was issued by the then Secretary late E.K.Francis and that it was issued in his handwriting. Therefore, the court below cannot be criticised as unjustified in holding that the plaintiff had proved that Ext.A1 was issued by the first defendant, AS No.895/96 4 acting through its then Secretary. No case of mal practice or collusion having been established, the court below was justified in decreeing the suit. We may also notice that even DW1, the present Secretary had deposed that the son of late Francis was later employed in the service of the Bank. 4. With the aforesaid, we do not find any legal infirmity or error in the appreciation of evidence by the court below. The Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the nature of the contentions, we direct the parties to bear the respective costs. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta AS No.895/96 5 AS No.895/96 6