IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA MONDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 18TH MAGHA, 1943 RFA NO. 76 OF 2013(H)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 874/2010 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

1 DR.R.SUJEEV, S/O.LATE PROF.D.RAJAN, VASANTHA BHAVAN, MURUKKUMPUZHA MURUKKUNMPUZHA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 302.

* DR.R.SUJEEV, S/O.LATE PROF.D.RAJAN, VASANTHA BHAVAN, MURUKUMPUZHA, MURUKKUMPUZHA P.O , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER R.JAYACHANDRAN, S/o.K.RAMACHANDRAN, RAGHU BHAVAN, T.C.NO.15/1404 (2), F2, TAGORE NAGAR,VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

*CAUSE TITLE OF THE APPELLANT IN RFA 76/13 IS AMENDED AS ABOVE AS PER THE ORDER DATED 2.7.14 IN IA 1333/14.

BY ADVS.

SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)

P.MARTIN JOSE P.PRIJITH THOMAS P.KURUVILLA MANJUNATH MENON AJAY BEN JOSE R.GITHESH HANI P.NAIR RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

1 VARGHESE ANICKAL VARKEY GEORGE, S/o.ANICKAL VARKEY GEORGE, ANICKAL HOUSE 2C, PALMSHADE SKYLINE PALMSHADE, EDAPPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 026.

BY ADVS.

SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.

SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.

-----------------------------------------------

R.F.A.No.76 of 2013 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2022

JUDGMENT

C.S.Sudha, J.

This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated

10.02.2012 in O.S.No.874/2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit is one for money based on a cheque. By the impugned judgment, the suit has been dismissed. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court with this appeal. The respondent herein is the sole defendant in the suit. The parties in this appeal will be referred to as described in the plaint.

2. The plaint was filed alleging thus- The plaintiff and defendant, both natives of Kerala, are doing various businesses in Dubai, UAE. They are close associates. In February 2006, the defendant purchased the scheduled properties in which he proposed to start a joint venture business with the plaintiff for developing the properties into a “Farm House-Tourism Spot”. The estimated cost for the completion of the project was two crore rupees. As requested by the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to invest 50% of the estimated cost of the project in instalments within a period of five years. Accordingly, he paid a total amount of Rs.2,85,00,4000/- in instalments, as cash as well as through the bank account of PW2, a friend of the defendant, who in turn handed over the money to the latter. Later on, realizing that the project was not going to materialize due to the inability/failure of the defendant to contribute his share in the business, the plaintiff demanded the money back. The defendant agreed to repay the money and issued Exts.B1 and B2 cheques dated 25.09.2009 drawn on Dhanalakshmi Bank, for an amount of Rs.1,42,50,000/- each. However, the cheques on presentation were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. When the defendant was informed of the dishonour, he sought time for repayment and thereafter issued Ext.A1 cheque dated 05.05.2010 drawn on Dhanalakshmi Bank, Palarivattom branch, Ernakulam for an amount of Rs.3,25,00,000/-. Ext.A1 cheque when presented was also dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Hence, the plaintiff issued Ext.A3 notice dated 31.08.2010 informing the defendant of the dishonour, to which the defendant sent Ext.A6 reply notice dated 16.09.2010 denying the liability and raising false and untenable contentions. Hence the plaintiff moved the suit for realization of an amount of Rs.3,25,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% percent annum.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint transaction. According to him, no amount as alleged in th