A debtor's liability is affirmed by the issuance of a cheque, and failure to return the cheque after payment indicates acceptance of liability.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.97/2014 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirur which in turn arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.166 of 2013 on the file of Munsiff Magistrate's Court, Ponnani.

2. Appellant is the defendant. Suit is one for recovery of money based on a cheque. (Parties would hereafter be referred as per their status before the trial court). Plaintiff and defendant are friends and in the year 2002 plaintiff went abroad. The defendant was managing the affairs of the plaintiff during that time. Most of the money earned by the plaintiff was sent in the name of the defendant for purchasing immovable properties in the name of plaintiff and his wife. Plaintiff sent mobile phone accessory for the purpose of the business. To discharge the liability in the above transaction, defendant issued cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. But, on presentation of the cheque it was returned for the reason 'account blocked'. On 07.02.2013, a lawyer notice was issued to the defendant intimating the dishonour. Thereafter, criminal complaint was filed against the defendant and it is pending as Crime No.278/2013.

Hence the suit.

3. Defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint regarding the sending of money by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant. Defendant is conducting real estate business. For that, he had received money from several people including the plaintiff and he was giving share of profits. Defendant is conducting mobile phone business and vehicle business on his own. The defendant never managed the business and the properties of the plaintiff. Plaintiff had involved in several financial transactions and was unable to continue at abroad and came down to the native place. A crime has also been registered against the plaintiff as Ponnani crime No.405/2009. Hence the defendant had some obstacles in continuing the business and hence he decided to settle the entire transaction with the plaintiff and settled the entire transaction with him and at that time an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was due from the defendant to the plaintiff. For that, defendant sought for a little time and agreed to repay the amount on selling his property at Nariparambu and thereafter that property was sold and cheque was issued in favour of plaintiff and amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was deposited in the account of the defendant from that date and only on receiving the lawyer notice he came to know that the plaintiff did not receive the amount and since the bank has instituted a case against him before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Savings Bank account in the name of the defendant was blocked. Thereafter, he contacted the plaintiff and almost at that time, he paid Rs.5,00,000/- due to the plaintiff and cheque was alleged to have been given to the Advocate by the plaintiff and agreed to return it later but it was not returned.

4. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked from the side of the plaintiff and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked from the side of the defendant.

5. On appreciating the rival contentions and documents and facts and circumstances, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. First appellate court on reappreciating the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Having lost before the two forums, appellant approaches this Court in the second appeal.

6. Notice was issued to the respondent. Lower court records were called for and both sides were heard.

7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, plaintiff did not adduce any evidence and only documents are produced inspite of specific contentions raised by the defendant in the written statement. It is also his contention that it is in discharge of the liability that Exts.B2 to B5 were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff but that contention of the defendant was not appreciated.

8. From the p