The plaintiff in O.S.No.83/2000 and the defendant in O.S.No.178/2002 is the appellant. Two suits namely, O.S.No.83/2000 and O.S.No.178/2002 were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment. O.S.No.83/2000 was filed by the appellant herein and O.S.No.178/2002 was filed by the respondent herein for return of money. The suit filed by the appellant was dismissed and the suit filed by the respondent was decreed which, as already noticed, was confirmed in appeal. 2. It is not disputed that there was a transaction in which an Ambassador car belonging to the respondent was agreed to be handed over to the appellant herein in lieu the Maruthi Car owned by the appellant being handed over to the respondent. The value of that Ambassador was Rs.65,000/- and the value of the Maruthi Car was Rs.1,40,000/-. The respondent contended that he had paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- and was waiting for the original documents. It was later found by him that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and therefore he returned the Maruthi Car to the appellant. He further stated that he is entitled to get Rs.75,000/- which he had paid towards balance sale consideration towards Maruthi Car. The respondent contended that Ext.A1 cheque was issued to him and on presentation, it bounced for want of funds. Since the amount was not paid, he had laid the suit.
3. The appellant laid O.S.No.83/2000 claiming money from the respondent towards the loss suffered by him. As regards the suit in which the appellant was the defendant, he contended that he had informed the Bank about the loss of two cheques one of which is Ext.A1 and that would show that the cheque was not in fact issued as alleged by the respondent herein. It was also pointed out that a reply notice pointing out all these facts have also been sent to the respondent herein.
4. On the above pleadings, issues were raised and the parties went to trial. The evidence consists of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. The defendant had DW1 examined and Exts.B1 to B3 were also marked. Exts.C1 and C2 are commission reports.
5. On evaluation of the material before it, the court below came to the conclusion that there is no merit in O.S.No.83/2000 and dismissed the suit. However, it found that the claim in O.S.No.178/2002 had been established and therefore it decreed the suit which was confirmed in appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in R.S.A No.535/2014 which arose from O.S.No.178/2002 pointed out that the courts below were not justified in coming to the conclusion that Ext.A1 cheque was issued in furtherance of the transaction as alleged by the plaintiff in the suit. In support of the contention, it was pointed out that the Commissioner who visited the place found both the Cars i.e. Ambassador and Maruthi in the possession of the plaintiff in O.S.No.178/2002 and that would belie his case that he had returned the Maruthi to the appellant herein. It is further pointed out that going by the chronological order of events, it could be seen that long before the date contained in the cheque namely, Ext.A1, the appellant had informed the Bank that he had lost some cheques one of which was the cheque in question. It is also pointed out that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were taken against the appellant which ended in acquittal. It is therefore pointed out that at any rate the plaintiff in O.S.No.178/2002 has not been able to show that the cheque has been issued as alleged and that should have been taken note of by the court below.
7. Though the argument may look attractive, it is without any basis. The exchange transaction was not disputed. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff in O.S.No.178/2002 had paid Rs.75,000/- to the appellant herein. Further the case of the appellant is that since he failed to hand over the papers relating to the Maruthi Car, the Maruthi Car was given back to him and the Ambassador Car was taken back and the respondent bargained for returned of money is not true. That, according to the appellant, belies the version given by the plaintiff in O.S.No.178/2002. It is an admitted fact that Ext.A1 contains the signature of the appellant. It is true that going by Ext.A7 which is an intimation to the Bank, he informed about the loss of two cheques, one of the cheques is Ext.A1. Probably, it should be noted that in all probability, cheque was a post dated cheque. At any rate, there is no doubt regarding the fact that the transaction could not be completed because the appellant was unable to hand over the original document relating to Maruti vehicle which he sold to the plaintiff in O.S.No.178/2002 in exchange of Ambassador Car and the balance sale consideration. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff in O.S.No.178/2002 had paid Rs.75,000/- to the defendant. It is therefore cannot be disputed that there was an outstanding liability on the part of the appellant to pay back Rs.75,000/- to the plaintiff in O.S.No.178/2002.
8. The above factors persuaded the courts below to accept the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.178/2002. This Court finds no ground to interfere with the judgment and decree in O.S.No.178/2000 which was rightly disposed of. The findings entered into by the court below are based on appreciation of evidence in the case.
9. In O.S.No.83/2000, the courts below found that the suit was barred by limitation. Though the appellant contended that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to the facts of the case, it was not accepted by the court below as there was no evidence regarding the same.
In the light of the fact that the findings have been entered into based on evidence and they are essentially question of fact, there seems to be no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals.
These appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.