CHANDRAN Vs. SIMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S.407/1990 on the file of Munsiff Court, Wadakkancherry is the appellant. Defendant is the respondent. Appellant instituted the suit seeking a decree for realisation of Rs.15,000/- due under Ext.A1 promissory note. It was contended that respondent borrowed Rs.15,000/- on 3.10.1989 and executed Ext.A1 promissory note promising to repay the same on demand and subsequently Rs.5000/- was repaid as per cheque dated 19.4.1990 and inspite of notice balance was not paid and therefore appellant is entitled to the decree. Respondent resisted suit contending that he did not execute the promissory note and did not borrow Rs.15,000/- as alleged. It was contended that appellant and respondent were working as shop managers under an Abkari contractor and when respondent wanted a transfer from one branch to another, he approached appellant who demanded Rs.5000/- for arranging the transfer and for that purpose a cheque was obtained from respondent along with signed blank papers and signed stamp papers and respondent is not liable to pay the amount claimed.

(2.) Learned Munsiff on evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 granted a decree holding that respondent borrowed Rs.15,000/- and executed as Ext.A1 promissory note and repaid Rs.5000/- evidenced by Ext.A2 and the balance is due. Respondent challenged the decree and judgment before District Court, Thrissur in A.S.193/1992. Learned District Judge on reappreciation of evidence set aside the decree and dismissed suit holding that Ext.A1 is a concocted document and respondent did not execute the promissory note or borrowed the amount as claimed by appellant. It is challenged in the appeal.

(3.) Appeal was admitted formulating the following substantial questions of law.