IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 871 of 1997()
1. ABRAHAM JACOB
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SOUTH INDIAN FINANCE,THOTTAKKADU
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SIBY MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.R.RAMADAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :05/01/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
————————————-
AS No.871 OF 1997-E
————————————-
Dated 5th January 2010
Order
The defendant in OS No.257/90, who suffered decree
for money, based on promissory note, is the appellant. The
parties and facts are hereinafter referred to, as they were
available before the Court below.
2. The plaintiff laid the suit for a sum of Rs.30,000/-,
based on Ext.A1 promissory note dated 24.04.1987. As
per the plaint allegation, the defendant borrowed
Rs.30,000/-, promising to repay it within a stipulated
period. Pointing out that the amount was not paid, the suit
was laid.
3. The defendant, as usual, took all possible
contentions to resist the suit, including denial of execution
of promissory note. He also raised the plea of material
alteration. Based on the pleadings, necessary issues were
raised by the Court below. Evidence consists of the
AS 871/97 2
testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A4 from the
plaintiff’s side. From the side of defendants, Exts.B1 to
B6 were marked and DW1 was examined. On the basis
of the materials before it, the Court below held that the
plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that the amount
was actually paid to the defendant on the basis of a
promissory note. The suit was accordingly decreed. The
Judgment and the decree are assailed in this appeal.
4. The question which arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether any interference by this Court is called
for with the order of the Court below.
5. It is unnecessary to go into the facts of the case
for the reason that money was paid on the basis of a
promissory note. The defendant would say that the
signature found on the promissory note does not belong
to him. The Court below perused and compared the
signature of the defendant found in the promissory note
with his available admitted signatures in the deposition,
summons, written statement etc. and held that the
AS 871/97 3
promissory note was, in fact, executed by the defendant
himself. The Court below was also of the view that since
the defendant was a businessman, he would be aware of
the consequences of signing any blank document. It is
also found that it is supported by consideration. On a
perusal of the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2, it can be seen
that the defendant did execute the promissory note for
Rs.30,000/-.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the signature of the appellant in the
promissory note was verified by comparison by the Court
and that is not proper and legal. It must be noticed that
the genuineness of the promissory note was found by the
Court below, not solely based on the comparison of
signatures, but also taking into consideration, other
materials as well, which were brought out in evidence.
S.73 of the Indian Evidence Act enables the Court to do
so. It is significant to notice that if he had not executed
the promissory note, he would have responded to the
AS 871/97 4
notice issued by the plaintiff, which was admittedly
received by him. The documents produced by the
defendant throw no light in the controversy involved in the
suit. He claimed that he had documents to show that he
had borrowed the amount. But, there are no materials
produced by him to show that what he claims is true.
Therefore, the Court below is perfectly justified in
decreeing the suit. The Appeal is devoid of any merit and
it is accordingly dismissed with costs.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
AS 871/97 5
P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
=====================
AS NO.871 OF 1997
========================
JUDGMENT
DATED 5TH JANUARY 2010
=======================
AS 871/97 6