AIYYAPPAN GOVINDAN Vs. KUTTAPPU SANKARANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit on an oral loan. The defendant is alleged to have obtained an oral loan of Rs. 100 from the plaintiff on 19. 12. 1120 and not to have returned that amount as promised by him. To the plaintiff's notice of demand he sent a reply denying the oral loan. Including himself the plaintiff examined three witnesses in the trial court. The defendant also gave evidence on oath. The trial court disbelieved the defendant and accepting the evidence of the plaintiff and his two witnesses decreed the suit in terms of the plaint. The lower appellate court disbelieved the plaintiff and his witnesses and reversing the trial court's decree dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has therefore filed this second appeal.

(2.) AT the time of hearing the appellant's counsel conceded that no second appeal lies in this case. But he prayed that the second appeal petition might be treated as a Civil Revision Petition and that the decree of the lower appellate court be vacated in revision. The ground on which revision is sought for is that the lower appellate court has acted erroneously in law in discarding the trial court's appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses and in disbelieving the plaintiff's witnesses who had been believed by the trial court. In support of this contention the learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Sarju Pershad v. Jwaleshawari, AIR 1951 SC 120, veeraswami v. Narayya, AIR 1949 PC 32, Pearey Lal v. Nanak Chand AIR 1948 PC 108, Muttathiparambil v. Kuriakose AIR 1950 TC 55 and Cheryan v. Chandy AIR 1952 TC 445.

(3.) IN the result, the second appeal is dismissed as incompetent and the appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.