Karri Rushi Naidu vs G.Ramana Murty
2021 Latest Caselaw 11396 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  RSA No.211 of 2019

            Karri Rushi Naidu                         ....         Appellant
                                                    Mr.A.Mahanta, Advocate
                                         -versus-
            G.Ramana Murty                            ....         Respondent


                         CORAM:
                         JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

                                      ORDER

08.11.2021 Order No.

3. 1. Heard Mr.Mahanta, learned Advocate for the Appellant.

2. The present appeal is against a concurring judgment of the First Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 30th April, 2018 in C.S.No.112 of 2015 has been confirmed.

3. The suit was for recovery of money amounting to Rs.4,08,000/-, which was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and the present Appellant, who was the defendant in the trial court, was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- along with 6% interest per annum.

4. The Plaintiff claimed that the defendant received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from him to deliver a vacant possession of the house through a mortgaged deed on 9th September, 2012. As the defendant failed to deliver the vacant possession, on demand of the Plaintiff to return the money, he issued three cheques each amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. The said cheques were dishonored on presentation which leads to filing of the money suit by the Plaintiff. As seen from the impugned judgment, payment and acceptance of money to tune of Rs.3,00,000/- has been endorsed in the alleged mortgage deed and the cheques with signature of the defendant were present to the bank, which were later dishonored.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that both the learned courts below have erred in law by resorting to the presumption under Section 118 of the N.I.Act despite clear denial of the plaintiff about issuance of such cheques in favour of the Plaintiff.

6. Having perused the judgment and decree of the learned trial court as well as the judgment of the First Appellant Court that no where the defendant disputes his signature on the cheques nor he claimed forgery of the same.

7. The learned Court below having relied on the proposition of law decided in the case of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, 2019 SAR (Criminal) 309 have fixed the liability on the defendant for payment of amount. In view of such settled proposition of law and the admitted evidence adduced on record, no merit is seen in the challenge of the Appellant (defendant).

8. Accordingly, the present appeal is not admitted and the same is rejected.

9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( B.P. Routray) Judge C.R.Biswal