V. Ranjith v. NataraJan

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thomas P. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2012-06-07
Court Decision / Holding: Hence this second appeal is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V.RANJITH, S/O VISWANATHAN NAIR, MADHAVAPURAMON DESOM, ELAKAMON DESOM, AYIROOR VILLAGE, PIN - 695 310.

Respondents

NATARAJAN, S/O KUNJURAMAN, PUTHENVEEDU, KAPPIL DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE AND POST, PIN - 695 311.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P.B. Krishnan
• Smt. Geetha P. Menon
• Sri. N. Ajith
• Sri. P.B. Subramanyan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for realization of Rs. 20,000 with interest, brought by the appellant, V. Ranjith, against NataraJan, contending that a loan of Rs. 20,000 was borrowed on 11 June 2001 and that a cheque dated 13 June 2001 was issued for its discharge, subsequently encashed on 19 June 2001. The respondent denies the loan transaction, claiming instead that the cheque was given toward the discharge of a liability, and adds a counter claim for rent arrears and damages arising from the appellant’s occupancy of the respondent’s building as a computer institute. The Munsiff’s Court accepted the respondent’s version and allowed part of the counter claim; the Sub Court, Attingal, on appeal, confirmed the decree dismissing the suit and the decree on the counter claim. The appellant’s counsel argued that the respondent failed to prove the loan and that the cheque was not for such liability; witnesses PWs 2 and 3 testified to a loan demand but were not witnesses to the cheque’s execution, and their testimony was not properly weighed by the courts below. The decision cites that payment by cheque creates a presumption in discharge of liability, citing Kochu Thommen v. Velayudhan and Muhammedkutty V. Abdulla, but the courts below nevertheless found the appellant failed to rebut the presumption. Regarding the counter claim, rent for two months and damages for a motor pump were found due at Rs. 9,140. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the second appeal.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Cheque payment is prima facie evidence of discharge of liability.
Presumption in favour of payment by cheque discharging liability in the absence of contrary evidence.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the respondent has not established a loan; the cheque issued on 13.06.2001 and encashed on 19.06.2001 was not for discharge of a loan but was to secure the respondent’s rent and other liabilities. The counsel emphasizes that the respondent did not produce evidence of a loan agreement and that PWs 2 and 3 merely testified to a loan demand but were not witnesses to the cheque’s execution; hence the presumption arising from the cheque’s encashment could not prevail without proper corroboration. The appellant argues that the trial and appellate courts erred in relying on the presumption and in accepting Ext. B1 (the rent deed) as circumstance supporting the loan claim, whereas the cheque itself suggests a different understanding of the parties’ transaction.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent maintains that there was a loan and the cheque was issued to discharge that liability, and, in addition, the appellant defaulted on rent and caused damage to the motor pump; the evidence, including Ext. B1 and testimonies regarding the loan demand, supports the counter claim for arrears and damages. The respondent’s counsel stresses that the cheque’s encashment on 19.06.2001 is prima facie evidence of discharge and that the courts below rightly weighed the evidence to conclude in the respondent’s favour.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kochu Thommen v. Velayudhan	1986 KLT 647	Positive	Cited as authority for the proposition that payment made by cheque is prima facie indicative of discharge of a liability.
Muhammedkutty V. Abdulla	2002(1) KLT 669	Positive	Cited as authority corroborating that payment by cheque can prima facie indicate discharge of liability.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH** **THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/17TH JYAISHTA 1934** ## **R.S.A.No. 679 of 2012 (E) ----------------------** **AS.50/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL, DATED 29-10-2011. O.S.293/2002 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA.** **APPELLANT(S): ------------** **V.RANJITH, S/O VISWANATHAN NAIR, MADHAVAPURAMON DESOM, ELAKAMON DESOM, AYIROOR VILLAGE, PIN - 695 310.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN.** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------** **NATARAJAN, S/O KUNJURAMAN, PUTHENVEEDU, KAPPIL DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE AND POST, PIN - 695 311.** **THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **amk** ## **THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ====================== R.S.A. No. 679 of 2012 ======================= Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** This second appeal arises from the judgement and decree of the Munsiff's Court, Varkala in O.S. No. 293 of 2002, confirmed by the Sub Court, Attingal in A.S. No. 50 of 2004. 2. Appellant filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 20,000/- with interest alleging that respondent availed a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from him on 11.06.2001 undertaking to repay the said amount within one year. According to the appellant, the amount was paid to the respondent through cheque dated 13.06.2001 which the latter encashed on 19.06.2001. As the amount was not paid, appellant issued notice dated 02.09.2002 demanding payment of the amount. 3. The respondent contended that there was no such loan transaction, instead, appellant had availed a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from him and the cheque dated 13.06.2001 was issued to him for the discharge of that liability. He also contended that appellant had taken his building on lease for conducting a computer institute, ## **R.S.A. No. 679 of 2012 -: 2 :-** defaulted payment of rent, caused damage to the motor pump and hence he is entitled to recover the defaulted rent and damages for the damage caused to the motor pump. Respondent made a counter claim against the appellant. 4. Appellant answered that counter claim denying the allegations made by the respondent. 5. Trial court accepted the version of respondent that there was no loan transaction. The trial court also found that certain amounts are due to the respondent as prayed in the counter claim and accordingly allowed the counter claim in part. The first appellate court has confirmed dismissal of the suit and the decree on the counter claim. Hence the second appeal. 6. Learned Senior Advocate has argued that on the face of denial of the case pleaded by the respondent that there was a loan availed by the appellant from him and that the cheque was issued for the discharge of that liability, respondent was bound to adduce evidence in support of his plea. No such evidence is adduced. On ## **R.S.A. No. 679 of 2012 -: 3 :-** the other hand, appellant was examined as PW.1. The courts below have rejected the evidence of Pws. 2 and 3 for no valid reason. The decree on the counter claim is also challenged. 7. It is not disputed that appellant issued cheque dated 13.06.2001 in favour of the respondent for Rs. 20,000/- and that cheque was encashed by the respondent on 19.06.2001. The decisions in **Kochu Thommen v. Velayudhan** (1986 KLT 647) and **Muhammedkutty V. Abdulla** (2002(1) KLT 669) are authority for the proposition that payment made by cheque is prima facie indicative of discharge of a liability. Therefore, respondent had the presumtion in his favour that the payment made as per cheque dated 13.06.2001 was for the discharge of a liability as he claimed. 8. It is true that respondent has not examined any witness to say that appellant had borrowed the amount from him. On the other hand, Pws 2 and 3 stated that respondent had demanded a loan of Rs.20,000/- from ## **R.S.A. No. 679 of 2012 -: 4 :-** the appellant on 11.06.2001 and appellant offered to give cheque on 13.06.2001. Courts below observed that Pws 2 and 3 are not witnesses for execution of the cheque. Courts below also said that the evidence of Pws 2 and 3 cannot be accepted. 9. Ext.B1 is the rent deed appellant had executed in favour of respondent for taking the building of the latter for conducting his computer institute. Ext.B1 is dated 15.06.2001. The courts below observed that if as suggested by the appellant, respondent was in need of money on 11.06.2001, appellant issued the cheque on 13.06.2001 and respondent encashed it on 19.06.2001, it was possible for the respondent to insist payment of money as security for the due observance of the terms and conditions of Ext.B1 rent deed dated 15.06.2001. 10. The courts below having regard to the evidence let in by the parties took the view that the appellant was not able to rebut the presumption in favour of the respondent based on payment as per the cheque. That is a finding of fact entered by the courts ## **R.S.A. No. 679 of 2012 -: 5 :-** below on the evidence on record. 11. As regards the counter claim, Ext.B1 is not in dispute and claim of the respondent is for arrears of rent for two months at the rate of Rs.3250/- per month. There are also certain other claims including for the damage caused to the motor pump installed in the rented premises. 12. Having regard to the evidence on record, the trial court found that the respondent is entitled to get Rs.9140/- from the appellant. That has been confirmed by the appellate court. 13. On hearing the learned senior Advocate and going through the judgments under challenge, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this matter which requires a decision of this court. Hence this second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ## **THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE** smv P.A. To Judge ## **R.S.A. No. 679 of 2012 -: 6 :-** smv