Appellant in a second appeal challenged a decree for recovery of Rs.1,50,000. Court dismissed the appeal holding no substantial question of law arose and noting the admission of borrowal amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/14TH JYAISHTA 1934
RSA.NO. 595 OF 2012 ()
------------------------------------AS.275/2011 OF SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM OS.484/2007 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
N.NAGAPPAN, S/O NATARAJAN, MOHANA BHAVA, CHOZHATTUKOTTA MALAYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
PRASANTH.M.NAIR, "GOWRI NIVAS" SANTHI VILA, VELLAYNI NEMON PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695020
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
==================================== R.S.A. No.595 of 2012
====================================
Dated this the 04th day of June, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Defendant in O.S. No.484 of 2007 of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram is aggrieved by the decree of that court as confirmed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S. No.275 of 2011.
R.S.A. No. 595 of 2012
-: 2 :-
agreement (Ext.B1) in favour of one Sreekantan Nair as benami for the respondent stating the sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/and that Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to the appellant as advance. Later when there was default on the part of appellant in payment of interest for six months, respondent, under compulsion obtained seven signed blank cheques, one of which has been misused. It is also the contention of appellant that later, the whole matter was settled by the appellant by selling his nine cents to another person and paying the amount due to the respondent. Following that, Ext.B1, agreement for sale was cancelled by Sreekantan Nair by Ext.B2, agreement.
R.S.A. No. 595 of 2012
-: 3 :-
the appellant to summon the complaint preferred by the respondent at the police station. The purport of summoning of that complaint was to show that in that complaint, according to the appellant, the version of respondent was that appellant owed Rs.80,000/- to him. First appellate court rejected that application for the reason that appellant has no case, either that he had borrowed only Rs.80,000/- or, having discharged the liability in part, his liability is only to the tune of Rs.80,000/-. First appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.
R.S.A. No. 595 of 2012
-: 4 :-
respect of 9 cents in favour another person, respondent appears as a witness, nothing is brought out to show that the said transaction is in any way connected with the money transaction appellant had with the respondent. It is relevant to note that Sreekantan Nair in whose favour Ext.B1 was executed and who in turn executed Ext.B2 was not examined by the appellant as a witness.
R.S.A. No. 595 of 2012
-: 5 :-
evidence of respondent as P.W.1. Contra evidence given by the appellant as D.W.1 was not acceptable to the courts below. The decision of the courts below is based on the evidence on record and it involves no substantial question of law requiring a decision by this Court.
Second Appeal is dismissed. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv
N.NAGAPPAN
PRASANTH.M.NAIR
THOMAS P.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
