IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 AS.No. 871 of 1997() -------------------- OS.257/1990 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT: -------------- ABRAHAM JACOB, S/O.JACOB SINDIA ELECTRICALS, KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENT: --------------- SOUTH INDIAN FINANCE THOTTAKKADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ALEYAMMA JOSEPH, W/O.JOSEPH CHOTTHIRAKUNNEL, THOTTAKADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- AS No.871 OF 1997-E ------------------------------------- Dated 5th January 2010 Order The defendant in OS No.257/90, who suffered decree for money, based on promissory note, is the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to, as they were available before the Court below. 2. The plaintiff laid the suit for a sum of Rs.30,000/-, based on Ext.A1 promissory note dated 24.04.1987. As per the plaint allegation, the defendant borrowed Rs.30,000/-, promising to repay it within a stipulated period. Pointing out that the amount was not paid, the suit was laid. 3. The defendant, as usual, took all possible contentions to resist the suit, including denial of execution of promissory note. He also raised the plea of material alteration. Based on the pleadings, necessary issues were raised by the Court below. Evidence consists of the AS 871/97 2 testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A4 from the plaintiff's side. From the side of defendants, Exts.B1 to B6 were marked and DW1 was examined. On the basis of the materials before it, the Court below held that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that the amount was actually paid to the defendant on the basis of a promissory note. The suit was accordingly decreed. The Judgment and the decree are assailed in this appeal. 4. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any interference by this Court is called for with the order of the Court below. 5. It is unnecessary to go into the facts of the case for the reason that money was paid on the basis of a promissory note. The defendant would say that the signature found on the promissory note does not belong to him. The Court below perused and compared the signature of the defendant found in the promissory note with his available admitted signatures in the deposition, summons, written statement etc. and held that the AS 871/97 3 promissory note was, in fact, executed by the defendant himself. The Court below was also of the view that since the defendant was a businessman, he would be aware of the consequences of signing any blank document. It is also found that it is supported by consideration. On a perusal of the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2, it can be seen that the defendant did execute the promissory note for Rs.30,000/-. 6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the signature of the appellant in the promissory note was verified by comparison by the Court and that is not proper and legal. It must be noticed that the genuineness of the promissory note was found by the Court below, not solely based on the comparison of signatures, but also taking into consideration, other materials as well, which were brought out in evidence. S.73 of the Indian Evidence Act enables the Court to do so. It is significant to notice that if he had not executed the promissory note, he would have responded to the AS 871/97 4 notice issued by the plaintiff, which was admittedly received by him. The documents produced by the defendant throw no light in the controversy involved in the suit. He claimed that he had documents to show that he had borrowed the amount. But, there are no materials produced by him to show that what he claims is true. Therefore, the Court below is perfectly justified in decreeing the suit. The Appeal is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta AS 871/97 5 P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ===================== AS NO.871 OF 1997 ======================== JUDGMENT DATED 5TH JANUARY 2010 ======================= AS 871/97 6