Partly allowed

C.Vijayarajan v. Pazhayedath Aboobacker

Kerala HC4 Jan 2022RFA/655/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the lower court's dismissal. The court held that the defendant admitted a cheque belonging to his account was one of three given for Rs.30,000, but failed to prove repayment. A decree was passed for recovery of Rs.30,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.30,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization from the defendant, charged on all his assets.

C.Vijayarajan Vs Pazhayedath Aboobacker — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 14TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

RFA NO. 655 OF 2009

¶6

OS 127/2007 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI

¶7

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

C.VIJAYARAJAN, S/O KANARAN, AGED 43 YEARS,
CHATHANMARTHODIKA VEETTIL, ARIMANAL PO, VIA
KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SRI.M.V.ANANDAN
SRI.C.J.SOLOMAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶11

PAZHAYEDATH ABOOBACKER, S/O.PAZHAYEDATH
MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT MELE KALIKAVU, PO
KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.
SMT.GEETHA P.MENON
SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN

¶13

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

RFA NO.655/2009

¶15

..2..

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

A suit based on Ext.A1 cheque for
Rs.2,70,000/- with interest was dismissed by
the lower court mainly on two reasons;
firstly, that on the alleged date of borrowal,
the plaintiff was admitted in a hospital for
which the lower court relied on the documents
tendered in a criminal case, i.e., FIR and
FIS, and the oral evidence tendered by the
Constable, who recorded it and secondly, on

¶18

the reason that he is a money lender by
profession. The cheque was alleged to have
been issued on 01.06.2006 at the residence of
the plaintiff and it is a post dated cheque
with date 16.08.2006, according to the
plaintiff. The defendant contested the suit
disputing and denying due execution of the
cheque, but, admitted that it is a cheque leaf

¶19

RFA NO.655/2009

¶20

..3..

¶21

belonging to his account drawn by him and it
contains his signature. However, he defended
that it is one among the three cheques
entrusted with the plaintiff at the time of
borrowal of an amount of Rs.30,000/-. It is

¶22

also inter alia pleaded that the entire amount
due was repaid.

¶23

2.The lower court went wrong in appreciating the

¶24

admission made by the defendant regarding the
loan transaction to the extent of Rs.30,000/-.
It has to be considered along with the fact
that the defendant has admitted that the
cheque leaf is belonging to his account drawn
by him and it contains his signature. Then the
only question to be considered is the
discharge pleaded by the defendant, for which
no satisfactory evidence was adduced. As such,
instead of dismissing the suit, the lower
court ought to have granted a decree for
return of the admitted amount of Rs.30,000/-

¶25

RFA NO.655/2009

¶26

..4..

¶27

with interest. By exercising discretion under
Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
interest can be fixed at 12% per annum from
the date of suit till the date of realisation.
Hence, the appeal will stand allowed in part.

¶28

The judgment and decree of the lower court is
set aside by granting recovery of an amount of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of
suit till the date of realization from the
defendant, and charged on all his assets.

Sd/-

P. SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

Bka/04.01.2022

C.Vijayarajan v. Pazhayedath Aboobacker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Vijayarajan v. Pazhayedath Aboobacker

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

P.S.Divakaran Vs P.B.Mathew

Safiya P.M Vs Union of India

Kuttan Kattachira @ Kuttan K.P., Vs C.K.Asha

St.George Bankers & Kuries Vs Harikumar G

Lakshmi & Others Vs Rugmini & Others

Jacob Vs Narayanan