S. Marimuthu, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree delivered by the District Judge, Kottayam in A. S. No. 175 of 1986. The plaintiff is the appellant and the defendant is the respondent. The plaintiff - appellant filed a suit in O. S. No. 333 of 1984 in the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry for recovery of money on the ground that he sold his Jeep bearing No. K.L.O. 9763 to the respondent on 3.9.1981. Towards the sale price Ext. A1 cheque was given by the respondent to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 13,000/-. When the cheque was presented it was dishonoured. Thereafter a sum of Rs. 4,500/- was paid by the respondent in cash and gave yet another cheque for a sum of Rs. 4,500/- on 20.9.1981. That was also dishonoured. Therefore for the balance amount of Rs. 8,500/- and for interest the suit was filed. The suit was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the appellant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 8,500/- from one Dileep Kumar, a partner of the respondent by pledging the R.C. Book of the said jeep. Since the said amount was not paid, the jeep was seized by Dileep Kumar. Thereafter on 12.6.1981 both Dileep Kumar and the appellant went to the house of the respondent who then paid a sum of Rs. 8,500/- to the appellant for which Ext. B2 Karar was executed. Before then, on 7.6.1981 a letter Ext. B1 was sent by the appellant to Dileep Kumar (DW 2) requesting to release the jeep. But he did not release. After the payment of Rs. 8,500/- on 12.6.1981, for the balance of Rs. 4,500/-, Ext. A4 cheque was given by the respondent to the appellant. That cheque was also dishonoured. Therefore, on the instruction of the respondent DW 2 paid the said sum of Rs. 4,500/- to the appellant. Thus the entire sale price was paid by the respondent to the appellant. Hence the suit is a false one and is liable to be dismissed.

2. The Trial Court on examining both the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit on the main ground that under Ext. B2 Karar dated 12.6.1981 sum of Rs. 8,500/- has been received by the appellant and thereafter also he received Rs. 4,500/- in cash under Ext. B3 dated 28.9.1981 and therefore no amount is due to the appellant from the respondent. Yet another ground for dismissal would be that Ext. A7 issued on 30.10.1985, a copy of the registration particulars of the suit jeep, is a fabricated document and therefore it cannot be acted upon, because the said document has been prepared on a Sunday, namely, 28.6.1981. As against the judgment of the Trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 175 of 1986, as pointed out above, before the District Court, Kottayam which confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court by dismissing the appeal.

3. Now the appellant plaintiff has come forward with this appeal before this Court. The main contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would be that DW 2 Dileep Kumar and the respondent admittedly are partners in a business and therefore DW 2 ought to have known the purchase of the jeep by the respondent from the appellant. When that be the case, DW 2 would not go to the extent of seizing the jeep for the loan which he had advanced to the appellant by getting the R.C. Book the said jeep as security. Further, Ext. B2 Karar dated 12.6.1981 was not at all executed by the appellant and it is a fabricated one, and above all it is not established as required by law. Ext. B3 receipt dated 28.9.1981 is also a fabricated one in view of the fact that the vehicle was already sold by the respondent as per Ext. A7 even on 26.8.81. As against the above contentions, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that Ext. A7 has been prepared on 28.6.1981 which was a Sunday, that therefore it can be rightly said that Ext. A7 is a fabricated document and no evidentiary value can be attached to it, that under Ext. B2 dated 12.6.1981 the respondent himself paid a sum of Rs. 8,500/- to the appellant who also put his signature in Ext. B2,