Dismissed

Suseelan v. Vijayakumar

Kerala HC19 Jul 2022RFA/827/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed an appeal against a decree for recovery based on a promissory note. Upholding the lower court, the judge held that the presumption of genuineness under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies absent contradictory evidence, noting that signatures covering revenue stamps often indicate document authenticity rather than forgery.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed without costs.

Suseelan Vs Vijayakumar — 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 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

RFA NO. 827 OF 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2008 IN OS 11/2007 OF SUB

¶7

COURT, NEYYATTINKARA

¶8

APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶9

1 SUSEELAN

¶10

S/O. SANKARA PANICKER, N.S.P. AGENCIES, AMARAVILA, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK BY ADVS. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.S.NITHIN ANCHAL SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶12

1 VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, EASWARA BHAVAN, PURAVOOR DESOM, PALUKAL VILLAGE BY ADVS. SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.MANU V. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD

¶13

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 19.07.2022,

¶14

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RFA NO.827 OF 2008

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2022

¶19

The defendant came up in appeal against

¶20

the decree and judgment of the trial court granting recovery of money based on Ext.A1 promissory note. It is a case wherein the due execution and signature found affixed as that of the defendant is brought under challenge. It is submitted that though the plaintiff had given oral evidence as PW1 and examined two other witnesses to the promissory note as PW2 and PW3, it is not explained under what circumstances two signatures as that of the defendant were affixed over the revenue stamp affixed document. It is a promissory note wherein a revenue stamp was affixed and two signatures were affixed covering the entire portion of the adhesive stamp affixed so as to extend the signature both over the adhesive stamp and the paper used for the

¶21

RFA NO.827 OF 2008

¶22

¶23

preparation of document. If it is a forged

¶24

document, there may not be any occasion for

¶25

forging two signature over the adhesive stamp and it is an indication of genuineness of the document and its due execution.

¶26

Further, the signature found affixed as that of the defendant is not an easily imitable one. Both the signatures were affixed one after another without leaving much gap and the signature is not easily imitable. These two signatures are similarly written with that of the admitted signatures

¶27

found affixed in their written statement and the Vakkalath. Further, in order to prove the due execution, PW2 and PW3 were examined, besides the oral evidence of PW1, the plaintiff and nothing was brought out to discredit their evidence. Even going by the written statement, the signature found affixed as that of the defendant in the first page, the last page and the middle page has got some dis-similarities. This would be an

¶28

RFA NO.827 OF 2008

¶29

indication of the attempt on the part of the

¶30

defendant to make some deviation from the signature found affixed as that of him in

¶31

Ext.A1 promissory note.

¶32

available under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no satisfactory evidence was adduced except the interested testimony of the defendant. Hence, appeal fails, dismissed without costs.

Sd/-

P. SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

SKP/19-7

Suseelan v. Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suseelan v. Vijayakumar

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

Subhash Vasu Vs Sree Gurudeva Charitable and Educational Trust

Deepa K.Kartha Vs Thulasilekshmi Ammal

Thulasilekshmi Ammal Vs Deepa.K Kartha

Sheeja Vs K.Gopalakrishna Pillai

Rajendran Pillai Vs K.Gopalakrishna Pillai

Moosa Vs Veeran Haji