The High Court dismissed the first appeal filed by the defeated defendant in a money recovery suit based on a dishonoured cheque. Findings that the defendant did not execute the cheque were upheld due to inconsistent pleadings and evidence.
The first regular appeal was dismissed, confirming the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/26TH MAGHA, 1937
RFA.No. 551 of 2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 518/1994 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 31-07-1996
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT.:
T.V.VARGHESE,
S/O. THEKKEKUZHIYATTIL VARKEY, PAZHAYANNUPADAM DESOM MANALITHARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DISTICT.
BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.:
RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KALARANJINI NIVAS KOLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTICT.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
JUDGMENT
15TH FEBRUARY 2016
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.F.A. No.551 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
Hariprasad, J.
Appeal is filed by the defeated defendant in O.S.518/94 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Thrissur. The suit is one for realisation of money based upon a dishonoured cheque. Plaintiff contended that the defendant had borrowed various sums of money, totaling to an amount of Rs.98,000/over a period from June to December 1988. In discharge of that liability, he issued a cheque in favour of the plaintiff. When presented for collection, it was dishonoured by the bank for want of funds in the account of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff approached the court below with a suit for recovery of money involved in the cheque. Further, a prosecution was also launched against the defendant under Section 420 IPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur as S.T.24/1990. The defendant contended that the suit is not maintainable, that the suit claim was barred by limitation, that he has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and that he never issued any cheque to the plaintiff.
R.F.A. No.551 of 2005
: 2 :
We find no reason to interfere with the finding of the court below. The appeal is devoid of any merit. Hence, it is dismissed.
SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE
SD/- A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE
jes
“ No court fee need be realised from the appellant in R.F.A.551/2005 who was permitted to institute the appeal as indigent”
vide order dated 15/02/2016 in R.F.A.551/05.
Sd/Registrar (Judicial)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of the trial court that the appellant did not execute the cheque is unsustainable.
Whether the appeal raised against the decree in the money recovery suit based on dishonored cheque deserves interference.
T.V. VARGHESE
RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR
ANTONY DOMINIC
A. HARIPRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
