High Court Kerala High Court

Anto vs Lakshmikutty on 19 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Anto vs Lakshmikutty on 19 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

AS.No. 276 of 2000(A)



1. ANTO
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. LAKSHMIKUTTY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JIJO PAUL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :19/10/2010

 O R D E R
                    M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   A.S. NO. 276 OF 2000
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
          Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010.

                      J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the

judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate

Judge, Thrissur in O.S.1433/94. The suit is

one for realisation of the amount due under a

promissory note. It is the case of the

plaintiff that the first defendant had borrowed

a sum of Rs.45,000/- and had executed a

promissory note and in spite of demand the

amount has not been given, hence the suit. The

sole defendant died and his legal

representatives are impleaded as supplemental D2

to D6. The contention of the contesting

defendants are to the effect that the first

defendant has not borrowed any amount. The

plaintiff has brought two ladies for the purpose

A.S. 276 OF 2000
-2-

of accommodation and the first defendant granted

them accommodation. They wanted an amount of

Rs.5,000/- and the plaintiff had given to them

at the instance of the defendant and at that

time the plaintiff had taken blank signed papers

and it is making use of the same the suit has

been filed.

2. In the trial court PW1 and DWs.1 to 3

were examined and Exts.A1 to A4, B1 and X1 to X4

were marked. On an analysis of the materials

the trial court dismissed the suit. The trial

court felt that the promissory note is not

properly proved. The Court also found that the

signature overlaps partly on the revenue stamp.

It is the opinion of the trial court that “So at

the first blush, it would appear that the person

who signed the instrument has not written the

body of the promissory note.” When there is a

A.S. 276 OF 2000
-3-

specific denial of the execution of the

promissory note it was imperative on the part of

the plaintiff to adduce satisfactory evidence

before the trial court. The Court also found

that the two ladies namely Omana and Nalini who

were alleged to be the persons had not been

examined at all. The Court further held that it

is the case of the plaintiff that he had

withdrawn the amount from the savings bank

account and from the Bank it can be seen that

the plaintiff had savings bank account No.1258

with South Indian Bank, Viyyur Branch. The pass

book shows that he had only a balance of

Rs.163/- on 10.3.93 and on 1.7.93 also the same

amount. But it was argued that the plaintiff

had taken a loan from the Bank on 18.6.93 and

therefore the source is proved. The trial court

has held that he had borrowed a sum of

A.S. 276 OF 2000
-4-

Rs.50,000/- for a specific purpose with a

stipulation to pay interest at the rate of 18.5%

to the Bank. Under ordinary circumstances a

person who had borrowed an amount at the rate of

18.5.% interest is not expected to disburse that

amount to another person at the rate of 10%. It

cannot be so especially when the plaintiff is a

money lender. The Court below also looked into

the account of the Viyyur Service Co-operative

Bank ltd where also the balance amount on his

account was Rs.3,795/-. So the S.B.Account, the

loan account and the co-operative society

account all would reveal that the plaintiff did

not have a bank balance of Rs.45,000/- to

advance the amount. It becomes important for

the reason that it is the specific case of the

plaintiff that he had withdrawn the amount from

the Bank and advanced it as loan. So in the

A.S. 276 OF 2000
-5-

absence of any evidence to prove the execution

of Ext.A1 and the surrounding circumstances such

as absence of amount in the S.B. account etc.

would lead to only one conclusion that the

plaintiff has not succeeded in proving that the

first defendant had executed a promissory note

and borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/-. I do not find

any ground to entertain this appeal. Therefore

the appeal is dismissed but without costs.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-

A.S. 276 OF 2000
-6-

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = =
A.S. No.276 OF 2000
= = = = = = = = = = =

J U D G M E N T

19th October, 2010.