VAREED KUNJU KUNJU Vs. CHELLAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the first defendant in O. S. 70 of 1974 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Quilon, challenging the decree and judgment passed therein.

(2.) THE first respondent herein filed a suit against the appellant (first defendant) and his son, the second respondent (second defendant) for recovery of Rs, 36,994/- from them. THE first defendant was a contractor. Second defendant was involved in the business conducted by the first defendant and it is alleged, they used to borrow money from the plaintiff for the purpose of their business. On 29-2-1972, there was settlement of accounts between the parties at the office of pw. 5, an advocate of Quilon in the presence of advocates pws. 4 and S and an auditor Ayyappan Pillai and the amount due to the plaintiff was fixed at Rs. 45,000/ -. THE defendants issued two post dated cheques for Rs. 10,000 and 35,000/-bearing dates 31-3-1972 and 31-5-1972, drawn by the second respondent and signed and delivered by the first defendant, Since the amounts due were not paid on or before the dates shown in the cheques, the plaintiff presented the cheques for collection and the cheques were dishonoured and the defendants were duly informed. THEreafter two cheques dated 6-6-1972 and 17-6-1972 for a total amount of Rs. 9,000/-drawn by lakshmana Perumal Raja were endorsed in favour of the plaintiff and these cheques also, when presented, were dishonoured and the defendants were informed about it. THE plaint further alleges that the second defendant paid Rs. 10,000/-in cash and took back the two cheques and on 25-7-1972 the first defendant endorsed another cheque for Rs. 5,000/-in favour of the plaintiff and the cheque has been encashed Two other cheques for Rs. 2,500/- each dated 17-2-1973 and 14-2-1973 were also endorsed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff but only one cheque could be encashed the other being dishonoured. Thus, in all Rs. 17,500 has been received out of the amounts due and an amount of Rs. 25,500 with interest at 10 percent per annum is due by the defendants. THE amount remained unpaid in spite of notice of demand which elicited only a false reply from the first defendant alleging that the plaintiff had been paid Rs 35,000/-against receipts issued. Such an amount has not been paid and the plaintiff has not issued any receipts. Defendants in their written statement contended that the cheques dated 31-3-72 and 31-5-1972 were caused to be issued on account of pressure and influence exerted by pw. 5; blank cheques were signed by the first defendant and handed over to Pw. 5 and they were made to be filled up by the second defendant as a result of threats uttered by pw. 5. THEre was no agreement to pay interest. However, since the two cheques bore the signature of the first defendant, the first defendant decided to pay off the amounts. THE defendants denied the payment said to have been made by the second defendant. THEy contended that on 12-2-1973, the first defendant paid Rs. 10,000 and 20,000/-towards the amounts covered by the two cheques referred to earlier and the plaintiff issued receipts, for the balance amount due on behalf of the plaintiff, two lorry loads of timber worth Rs. 3,000/- was supplied to the plaintiff's brother by the first defendant on 9-7-1973 and the balance due to the plaintiff would be only Rs. 2,000/ -. THE second defendant is an unnecessary party. THE plaintiff filed a replication denying the material allegations in the written statement.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court committed a serious error of law in seeking corroboration of the expert opinion. It is contended that there is no rule of law or of caution requiring the court to insist on corroborative evidence. Our attention has been invited to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court. We shall briefly refer to them.