The court ruled that the mere admission of a signature on a cheque does not suffice for execution; the plaintiff must provide corroborative evidence to prove the transaction.

The defendants 2 and 3 in OS 318/1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery are the appellants. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court).

2. The plaintiff filed the Suit for realisation of a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- due from late Radhakrishnan K.V., being the balance amount due in respect of purchase of old building materials. The 1^st defendant is the mother, 2^nd defendant is the wife and 3^rd defendant is the minor son of late Radhakrishnan. According to the plaintiff, late Radhakrishnan and plaintiff were doing business in old building materials. The plaintiff used to supply old building materials to Radhakrishnan on credit basis after receiving cheque as security and thereafter on payment of the amount he used to return such cheques. Accordingly on 21.3.1996 Radhakrishnan along with his brother Murukan came to a Saw Mill in M.M. Road, Thalassery wherein the building materials were stored and selected articles for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. On the next day on 22.3.1996 Radhakrishnan came and took the articles in four lorries after paying a sum of Rs.60,000/-. For the balance amount of Rs 2,40,000/- he had issued a cheque dated 30.4.1996 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Koyilandi branch. However, in the meantime, on 7.4.1996 Radhakrishnan died due to heart attack. Therefore he could not present the cheque for collection. Further according to the plaintiff, on 2.7.1996 he approached the defendants in their residence at Neyyattinkara and informed about the transaction. They agreed to pay the amount but thereafter, they refused to fulfill the promise. Accordingly, he had filed the Suit against the defendants who are the legal representatives of deceased Radhakrishnan.

3. The defendants filed written statement denying the entire averments in the plaint, including any transaction with late Radhakrishnan. One of the contentions taken by them in the written statement is that Radhakrishnan was suffering from chronic liver cirrhosis and he was bed ridden for about two months prior to his date of death and as such there was no occasion for him to reach Thalassery on 21.3.1996 or thereafter. According to them on 2.7.1996 the plaintiff along with two others came to their residence and inquired about Murugan, the elder brother of Radhakrishnan and told them that Murugan owes money to the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the cheque allegedly in the possession of the plaintiff could only be the one fraudulently obtained by Murugan from Radhakrishnan. According to them, the business in the old building materials was conducted by Murugan and Radhakrishnan was only helping him in that business. According to them, the signature in Ext.A1 cheque does not belong to Radhakrishnan and other entries therein also does not belong to Radhakrishnan.

4. The trial court framed necessary issues. On the side of the plaintiff PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendants DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.X1 to X6 were marked.

5. On an earlier occasion, the trial court decreed the Suit, against which the defendants preferred A.S.1021/1998 before this Court and the matter was remanded by this Court as per judgment dated 8.8.2012. Thereafter, PWs1 and 2 were further examined and DW2 was also examined. Ext.X5 and X6 were marked during this stage. After hearing both sides, the trial court again decreed the Suit. In the meantime, the 1^st defendant died and Murugan, one of the sons of the 1^st defenda