Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
AMBILY VENUGOPAL – Appellant
Versus
DEVARAJAN.P. – Respondent
RFA (Indigent) NO. 261 OF 2015
In a suit for recovery of debt, a written acknowledgment signed by the debtor explicitly admitting the outstanding balance from a prior loan, without qualifiers like "subject to accounts," was held sufficient to create fresh limitation and prove subsisting liability, corroborated by bank statements showing no repayments. (!) (!)
A typed letter from the defendant referencing "the loan of Rs. X dated Y" and stating "I acknowledge the debt and agree to settle," executed within limitation, was admitted as valid evidence despite lacking full transaction details, as oral evidence confirmed the context and defendant's conduct repudiated denial claims. (!) (!) (!)
Where a receipt for partial payment towards "previous dues" was challenged as vague, the court ruled it ineffective for extending limitation due to absence of specific reference to the debt's amount or date, emphasizing need for clear identification to prevent ambiguity. (!) (!)
A promissory note renewing an old debt, signed post-limitation expiry but referring precisely to the original loan documents, was deemed a valid acknowledgment only because it unqualifiedly admitted liability and was supported by witness testimony on execution. (!) (!)
Handwritten chits acknowledging "balance due on account of money borrowed earlier" gained evidentiary weight when matched with prior cheques and the debtor's cross-examination admissions, despite informality, upholding the plaintiff's claim. (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's burden of proof regarding loan repayments. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. evaluation of evidence and testimonies in proving financial transactions. (Para 4 , 10) |
| 3. acknowledgment of receipt and subsequent transactions support plaintiff's claims. (Para 6 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. cheque as evidence reflecting liability. (Para 7) |
| 5. decision affirming lower court's judgment. (Para 12) |
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The defendant in a suit for recovery of money is the appellant. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the learned Sub Judge decreed the suit for ₹51,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. According to the plaintiff, he lent money to the defendant at the request of her husband, who was closely acquainted with him. The money was required for the purchase of agricultural land and vehicles such as a JCB, tipper lorry and a car. On 13.07.2007, the defendant received ₹7,00,000/- as evidenced by Ext.A4 receipt. Thereafter, ₹21,00,000/- was paid to her on 01.08.2007. Further sums of ₹3,00,000/- and ₹7,00,000/- were paid on 03.08.2008 and 25.10.2008 respectively. It is further alleged that Ext.A5 letter was issued acknowledging receipt of the latter three payments. During the period from April 2007 to October 2008, the plaintiff also transferred ₹8,29,000/- to the defendant through UAE Exchange (Exts.A9 to A37). Thus, according to the plaintiff, a total amount of ₹46,29,000/- was paid to the defendant. He further stated that he mobilised the said amount from his own funds and also with financial assistance from his superior officer (PW1). On 29.05.2009, the defendant issued Ext.A1 cheque for Rs.51 lakhs, which includes the principal amount and interest at 18% per annum till then. Upon dishonour of the cheque, the plaintiff issued Ext. A6 notice intimating dishonour, but the amount was not repaid, it is alleged.
3. The defendant contended that she sought financial assistance from the plaintiff to the extent of ₹10 lakhs and then he introduced one Mr. Prakash (PW3), who advanced ₹7,00,000/- to her. At the time of receiving the said amount, she issued certain signed blank papers and a blank cheque to Mr. Prakash. She further contended that she repaid ₹4,90,000/-
to PW3 through Western Union Money Transfer, Palakkad, on 04.08.2007. In October 2007, she received ₹3,00,000/- from the plaintiff, which she repaid with interest. She also stated that the plaintiff represented that he would arrange a loan from other financial institutions and, in that connection, obtained certain documents from her, but failed to secure the loan. The defendant denied having borrowed ₹46,29,000/- from the plaintiff or having issued a cheque for ₹51,00,000/-. According to her, Ext.A1 cheque and the other documents were forged by the plaintiff by misusing the documents obtained as security in connection with the earlier transaction. She further contended that she had repaid ₹12,57,800/- to the plaintiff. She replied Ext. A6 notice as per Ext. B2, raising the above contentions.
4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and DW1, along with Exts.A1 to A37 and Exts.B1 to B50. Exts.X1 to X4 were also marked in evidence. Upon evaluation of the evidence, the trial court found the plaintiff’s version to be probable and reliable, and the defence set up by the defendant to be untenable. Accordingly, the suit was decreed for the cheque amount, together with interest.
5. We have heard Sri.Manu Vyasan Peter, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, and Sri K.V. Sohan, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.
6. In view of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is whether the defendant is liable to pay ₹51,00,000/- with interest to the plaintiff, and whether Ext.A1 cheque was issued in discharge of the said liability.
7. Although the defendant admitted that she had borrowed some amount from the plaintiff, she denied
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
