SUKUMARAN Vs. G VIJAYAKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.No.409/2002 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara is the appellant. Defendant is the respondent. Appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a decree for realisation of Rs.34,000/- with interest allegedly borrowed by the respondent/defendant in execution of Exhibit A1 promissory note dated 5.11.2001. Respondent denied the execution, admitting his signatures in Exhibit A1, contending that his signature was obtained in a blank paper.

(2.) LEARNED Munsiff, on the evidence of the appellant as PW1 and respondent as DW1, accepted the evidence of PW1 and granted a decree. Respondent challenged the judgment and decree before Sub Court, Neyyattinkara in A.S.No. 199/2003. LEARNED Sub Judge, on re-appreciation of evidence, found that execution of promissory note is not proved and appellant had no means to pay the amount at that time and therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the suit. It is challenged in this second appeal.

(3.) THE question of law projected by the learned counsel in the appeal memorandum is whether first appellate court was justified in holding that presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be drawn, when the defendant admitted his signature in the instrument and the money transaction.