Dismissed

K.Chathu v. a.Kabeerdas & Others

Kerala HC11 Nov 2009CRP/601/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court in Revision Petition Cr.P.No.601 of 2007 rejected the appellant's challenge to a decree in a suit for money. Upholding the lower courts' findings on disputed facts regarding an agreement and signature comparison, the Court dismissed the revision and awarded costs to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed with cost to the respondent/plaintiff.

K.Chathu Vs a.Kabeerdas & Others — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

CRP.No. 601 of 2007(E)

¶6

--------------------------------AS.NO.9/1999 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE, OS.NO.688/1995 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE. ....................

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶8

------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

K.CHATHU, S/O. AYYAPPAN, PEON, KONDOTTY BLOCK OFFICE, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT CHERUKAVE AMSOM, PUTHUPADAM DESOM OF ERANAD TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/LEGAL HEIRS OF RESPONDENT/LEGAL HEIRS OF PLAINTIF:

¶12

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. A.KABEERDAS, (DIED ON 25.6.2002), S/O. SEKHARAN, DOCTOR BY PROFESSION, WEST HILL, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶14

2. SUGANTHI, D/O. A.KABEERDAS, MUNDOTH VAYAL, POST WEST HILL CHUNGAM, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

3. SHERITH, S/O. A.KABEERDAS, MUNDOTH VAYAL, POST WEST HILL CHUNGAM, KOZHIKODE.

¶16

4. SHERINA, D/O. A.KABEERDAS, MUNDOTH VAYAL, POST WEST HILL CHUNGAM, KOZHIKODE.

¶17

R2 TO R5 BY ADV. MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR .

¶18

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

prv.

¶20

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶21

C.R.P.No.601 of 2007 - E

¶22

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2009

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The defendants in O.S.No.688 of 1995 on the file of the 1^st Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode has filed the above revision

¶25

challenging the decree passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in a suit for money which had been confirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge, Kozhikode. Suit claim was based on an agreement for a sum of Rs.12,000/-. Execution of the agreement was disputed by the revision petitioner/defendant contending that there was a loan transaction with the plaintiff for a lesser sum, and major portion of which had been discharged by repayment. Before the trial court, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and defendant as DW1. The trial court appreciating the materials tendered negatived the contentions raised by the defendant and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. In the appeal preferred by the defendant, learned District Judge concurred with the findings arrived by the trial judge and the appeal was dismissed. Against the concurrent decision so rendered by the two courts below, the revision has been filed.

¶26

C.R.P.No.601 of 2007 - E

¶27

¶28

The main challenge canvassed in the revision at the time of hearing by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant is that both the courts have not taken into account the contention raised by the defendant that there are material discrepancies in the case of the plaintiff as reflected in his plaint and also the advocate notice issued earlier. Ext.B1 is the copy of the advocate notice issued to the defendant. In Ext.B1 notice the date of transaction and also the date fixed for periodical payments of the loan amount vary from what is alleged in the plaint and also in the evidence. Another contention canvassed by the counsel is that both the courts below have went wrong in comparing the signature of the plaintiff in the agreement with those appearing in vakalath and the written statement. Court is not an expert to form an opinion on comparison of hand writing or signatures and so much so, the failure of the plaintiff to take appropriate steps for comparison of the signatures by sending the disputed document with admitted signatures of the defendant to an expert was a serious lacuna disentitling the plaintiff from getting a decree on the suit claim is

¶29

C.R.P.No.601 of 2007 - E

¶30

¶31

the submission of the learned counsel. After going through the judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge, who had the opportunity to watch the demeanour and deportment of the witnesses when they were examined, and also that of the learned District Judge, I find that the conclusion formed by both the courts below after evaluating materials tendered in the case on disputed questions of facts involved in the case are unimpeachable. Such findings, in fact, cannot be reopened and agitated before this Court in the absence of any tenable ground indicating the findings so entered are perverse. Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only if it is shown that there is serious infirmity that too, jurisdictional infirmity in the orders or findings made by the court below. So far as findings entered on facts the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and no interference is permissible unless it is shown that the finding is so perverse and it could not have been formed by a man of ordinary prudence. There is no bar under law interdicting the court from forming an opinion after comparing the signatures or writings when disputes are raised by one or other party in respect of hand writing or

¶32

C.R.P.No.601 of 2007 - E

¶33

¶34

signatures in a document. After all the opinion given by the expert on such questions has got only persuasive value as the court has to form a decision on that disputed question. So much so, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the counsel for the defendant that the courts below went wrong in holding that the signatures appearing in the agreement have been subscribed by the defendant after comparing the signatures in that document with his admitted signatures in the vakalath and also written statement. To the advocate notice issued by the plaintiff the defendant had not sent any reply. The dates stated in the notice are different from the case pleaded by the plaintiff has innocuous value when the materials produced convincing by established suit claim of the plaintiff.

¶35

There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed with cost of the respondent/plaintiff.

¶36

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶37

bkn/-

K.Chathu v. a.Kabeerdas & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Chathu v. a.Kabeerdas & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunjan Sivaraman Vs Mariamma Joseph and Others

Mohanan Vs Abdul Salam

Babu Vs Anirudhan

K.K. Rajeevan Vs T.V. Gangadharan

Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala and Others

Vasanthakumari Vs Raichal Banitta