THOMAS ALIAS TOMY Vs. K C THOMAS
LAWS(KER)-2003-10-6
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on October 09,2003

THOMAS ALIAS TOMY Appellant
VERSUS
K.C.THOMAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S. Sankarasubban, J. - (1.) This appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S.No.63 of 1999 of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha. Respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest thereon. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:
(2.) The plaintiff is an Agriculturist. He is having rubber plantation. He sells the rubber to the defendant, who stores it and sells it at Kochi. The dealing has been going for a long time. The practice is that whenever the quantity of rubber is entrusted to the defendant, a slip will be given by the defendant showing the quantity as well as the price and later on, on producing the slip, the amount will be given. According to the plaintiff, the amount under two slips is due to the plaintiff. Those slips are produced as Exts.A1 and A2 and the value of those slips together comes to Rs. 1 lakh and odd and the rubber was sold in 1994. There is another case for the plaintiff that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.68,000/- personally in 1994. Even though many times the plaintiff demanded the amount from the defendant, he did not pay the same. Ultimately, at the instance of the mediators, a cheque for Rs.4,50,000/- was issued by the defendant to the plaintiff taking into account the entire amount due to the plaintiff as well as the interest thereon. When the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured. Thus, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest thereon.
(3.) The defendant filed a written statement. In the written statement, the transaction with the plaintiff is denied. He also denied that he took a loan of Rs.68,000/-. It is further stated that there was a practice on the part of the defendant of keeping signed cheques. The building in which the defendant's shop is housed was trespassed by one Thomas and took away the valuables from it. This included cheque leaves and those cheques would have been made use of by the plaintiff. At the time when the cheque was alleged to be executed, the claim had become barred by limitation and hence, even if the cheque is issued, it cannot be legally enforced.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.