In this second appeal against decrees passed in a civil suit, the High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' rejection of a claim for Rs. 6,954/- based solely on uncorroborated oral testimony regarding a prior transaction.
The second appeal was dismissed and all pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.
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 K.HARILAL
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/5TH KARTHIKA, 1938
SA.No. 393 of 2001 (E)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 19-09-2000 IN AS 141/2000 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 21-12-1999 IN OS 565/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
SHANMUGHA SUNDARAM, S/O.CHINNAPPA KOUNDAR, RESIDING AT PANNIPERUMTHALA, THEKKEDESOM VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.A.T. PAI
SRI.MAHESH T.PAI
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
RETHINARAJ, S/O.SWAMINATHA NADAR, RESIDING AT V/437, NADUPOONI ROAD, ERUTHEMPATHI VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OKB
K.HARILAL, J.
S.A. No.393 of 2001
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The appellant is the plaintiff who filed O.S.No.565/1997 before the Munsiff's Court, Chittur for granting a decree to realise an amount of Rs.51,374/- from the respondent herein. The parties are referred to as in the original suit. The aforesaid claim was raised against the defendant under two heads. According to the plaintiff, the defendant purchased 600 gunny bags of rice from the plaintiff and issued a cheque and for balance purchase price Ext.A1 promissory note for Rs.21,000/- was also issued. The defendant later agreed to pay Rs.6954/- to the plaintiff as the amount due to him as balance due under prior transaction. Though the defendant filed a written statement, later, he was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed. After analysing the evidence of P.W.1 and Exts.A1 and A2 the trial court granted a decree to realise an amount of Rs.21,000/- due under the promissory
SA.393/01-E :2:
note only and rejected the claim for Rs.6,954/- allegedly due as balance under prior transaction. Feeling aggrieved, though he had preferred A.S No.141/2000 before the District Court, Palakkad, the appellate court also after reappreciating the evidence on record dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The concurrent findings whereby the courts below rejected the claim of Rs.6,954/- allegedly due under an oral transaction is challenged in this Second appeal.
the trial court was an ex parte decree. But the trial court meticulously examined the oral evidence given by the plaintiff and the documentary evidence which are produced as Exts.A1 and A2.
SA.393/01-E :3:
defendant was liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,954/- as balance amount due under prior transaction. To substantiate the oral evidence there is no evidence other than the uncontroverted testimony of the plaintiff himself. It is the case of the appellant that there was an oral agreement for the same. No evidence either oral or documentary had been produced to substantiate at least the contention that there was a prior transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. Even if no other evidence to prove the oral evidence, certainly he could have produced some evidence to show the prior transaction under which he is claiming Rs.6,954/-. Secondly, as rightly noted by the appellate court, it is improbable to believe that the defendant orally agreed to pay Rs.6,954/- on 11.5.1995 on which day he executed Ext.A1 pro-note in his favour acknowledging the debt coming to the tune of Rs.21,000/-. Had he agreed to pay Rs.6,954/- also, certainly that amount would have been included in the promissory note, particularly when both agreements were on the same day. In the above view the plaintiff miserably failed to prove the oral agreement under which the defendant
SA.393/01-E :4:
allegedly agreed to pay Rs.6,954/-. Thus, the courts below are justified in rejecting the contentions concurrently. No question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
This Regular Second Appeal will stand dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand
dismissed.
Sd/K.HARILAL, Judge.
okb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether courts below were justified in rejecting the appellant's claim for Rs. 6,954/- allegedly due under an unproven oral transaction.
Whether the promissory note was adequate evidence of the total debt given the claim of additional balance due on the same day.
Shanmugha Sundaram
Rethinaraj
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
