Dismissed

Sreedevi Amma v. K.N.Bhaskaran Nair

Kerala HC17 Sept 2021RFA/463/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against a decree in a suit for realization of money based on a promissory note. Upholding the trial court, the Court held that the defendant could not rebut the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by advancing an improbable story, noting that the execution of a previous sale deed favored the plainti

What did the court decide?

The appellant's appeal was dismissed without costs.

Sreedevi Amma Vs K.N.Bhaskaran Nair — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

RFA NO. 463 OF 2003 (E)

¶6

AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2003 IN O.S.No.407/1998

¶7

OF PRL. SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶8

APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶9

SREEDEVI AMMA, W/o K.RAMACHANDRA PANICKER, ANJALI, NEAR SHYNI MOSAIC, PERUNNAI P.O., CHANGANACHERRY BY ADVS. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH

¶10

SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS SRI.JOSELAL GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶12

1 K.N.BHASKARAN NAIR, S/o NEELAKNATA PANICKER, RAJASREE, PERUNNAI, CHANGANACHERRY. (DIED, LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED)

¶13

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4

¶14

ADDL.R2 RADHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, W/o LATE K.N.BHASKARAN NAIR, RAJASREE, PERUNNAI P.O., PIN 686102, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM (DT)

¶15

ADDL.R3 JAYASREE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/o LATE K.N.BHASKARAN NAIR, RAJASREE, PERUNNAI P.O., PIN 686102 CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM (DT)

¶16

ADDL.R4 JAYARAJ, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/o LATE K.N.BHASKARAN NAIR, RAJASREE, PERUNNAI P.O., PIN 686102, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM (DT)

¶17

(LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED 1^st RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.11.2019 IN IA 447/2016) [IA 2/16]

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

¶19

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

R.F.A.No.463 of 2003

JUDGMENT

The defendant came up in appeal against the decree for realization of money of Rs.5,16,000/- based on a promissory note for Rs.4,00,000/-, dated 01.07.1996. The demand notice was issued on 07.12.1998 and the suit was filed on 21.12.1998. It is an admitted case of both the parties that just few days before the alleged execution of promissory note, dated 01.07.1996, 6 cents of property belonged to the plaintiff was purchased by the defendant under Ext.B1 document on 25.06.1996. It is a case wherein

¶24

the defendant admitted his signature affixed in the promissory note after affixing a revenue stamp, but advanced a case that the plaintiff obtained the blank stamp affixed signed paper after obtaining his signature along with cheques and other stamp papers by making him believe that the plaintiff will give him financial assistance for the construction of his house in the property covered by Ext.B1 sale deed. Ext.B1 sale deed is dated 25.06.1996 and the promissory note is dated 01.07.1996. As discussed earlier, it is a case wherein the defendant admitted the

¶25

R.F.A.No.463 of 2003 3

¶26

signature as that of him affixed in the promissory note after affixing a revenue stamp. When the signature found

¶27

affixed as that of the defendant in the promissory note was admitted, he has to explain under what circumstance he had given such signed stamped paper to the plaintiff, for which the explanation forwarded is highly improbable. Falsity is

¶28

writ large on its face. A highly improbable story was narrated that under the belief of getting a financial assistance, he had given signed stamp paper, cheque etc to the plaintiff. Further, the defendant, never mounted on the box in order to give or explain the circumstance under which he had issued signed stamp paper to the plaintiff. The oral evidence tendered by her husband as DW1 cannot be substituted in the place of direct evidence of the defendant. The execution of Ext.B1 sale deed dated 25.06.1996, on the other hand, would lend support to the case advanced by the plaintiff. Hence, the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff has discharged the initial burden to prove due execution of the promissory note cannot be interfered with.

¶29

R.F.A.No.463 of 2003 4

¶30

Regarding the consideration, the presumption available under Section 118 of the NI Act is not rebutted. On the other hand, the execution of Ext.B1 sale deed, dated 25.06.1996, would lend support to the case advanced by the plaintiff. Hence the appeal fails, deserves only dismissal, but without costs.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Sreedevi Amma v. K.N.Bhaskaran Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreedevi Amma v. K.N.Bhaskaran Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ammini Kuruvila, Vs Kunjumol Charly

Ayisha Kunhammed Vs E.K.Soman

Kannoth Biyyathu Vs Nhenol Kunhi Avulla Haji

Sobha Vs Sasikumar

Prabhakaran K. Vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Rekha Vs Sunil Kumar