In a second appeal regarding a loan suit, the High Court held that the genuineness of the promissory note was a question of fact conclusively decided by lower courts. Finding the appeal devoid of merit, the court dismissed it without exercising the discretion to interfere.
The second appeal is dismissed. All interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.
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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/25TH KARTHIKA, 1937
RSA.No. 1170 of 2013 ()
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS.NO. 188/2009 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (SPECIAL), KOTTAYAM DATED 20-09-2012)
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS.NO. 214/2008 OF ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 07-03-2009)
----------------
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
SAM KUMAR V.V., AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAPPURATHU HOUSE, AYMANAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
JOSE VALIYAVEEDAN, AGED 50 YEARS, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR.P.O. KOTTAYAM-686 010.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
R.S.A.No.1170 of 2013
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2015
JUDGMENT
The defendant in a suit for realization of money is the appellant.
R.S.A.No.1170 of 2013
2
chitty transaction and that Ext.A1 promissory note is a document created making use of the signed blank papers entrusted by the defendant to the plaintiff. The trial court accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit and the appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court. The defendant who is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against him has thus come up in the second appeal.
before the court below to substantiate his contentions is Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is a pass-book of a chitty transaction. The courts below found that there is nothing in Ext.B1 to connect the said document with the plaintiff. It is in the said circumstances, the courts below accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The fact that the signature contained in Ext.A1 promissory note, on the basis of which the suit was filed, is one put by the defendant is
R.S.A.No.1170 of 2013
3
not in dispute. It is the contention of the defendant that the same is a false document. The question whether Ext.A1 is a false document is a pure question of fact. The courts below have concurrently found, based on the materials on record, that Ext.A1 is a genuine document. In the said view of the matter, I do not find any justification to interfere with the decisions of the courts below, in exercise of my discretion under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The second appeal is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
smm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of lower courts on the genuineness of a promissory note under Section 100 CPC.
Whether the second appeal is devoid of merits against the concurrent decisions of courts below holding the promissory note genuine.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sam Kumar V.V.
Jose Valiyaveedan
P.B.Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
