M AYAMUTTY Vs. KUNHIMOITHEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the defendant in O.S. No.112/2010 on the files of the Subordinate Court, Ottappalam. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for ralisation of money. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same within three months. When he demanded the amount, the defendant issued Ext.A1 cheque dated 24/9/2007 to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff presented Ext.A1 cheque, for collection, it was returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the defendant. In spite of Ext.A4 lawyer's notice, the defendant failed to pay the amount. Hence the suit was filed.

(2.) In the written statement, the defendant denied the money transaction alleged by the plaintiff in the suit. According to him, he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff; but while he was working in Gulf countries, he had some financial transaction with one Latheef and he had delivered some signed blank cheque leaves, during the year 1998-99, to the said Latheef, as security, for the amount borrowed from him. Though the defendant repaid the amount to Latheef, the blank cheque leaves were not returned. Now, it is learnt that the plaintiff has instituted the suit by misusing one of the blank cheque leaves, after obtaining the same from the said Latheef. Thus, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) The evidence consists of the oral testimonies of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B3. After considering the evidence, on record, the trial court decreed the suit, as prayed for.