In a suit for money, the defendant came forward with a contention that the cheque has been materially altered and therefore he is not liable. It seems that in the written statement execution was also denied so also the receipt of the amount from the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff had specifically alleged that the defendant after receiving sum of Rs.1,00,000/- had issued Ext.A1 cheque dated 25.12.2000. He presented the cheque for encashment, but it was returned for want of funds. He sent a lawyer notice and a reply was received by him.
3. The contentions of the defendant have already been referred to.
4. Both the courts below have found that at the time of evidence, the defendant had admitted receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- and issuance of Ext.A1 cheque. The courts below have also noticed that the contention regarding alteration of date was a clear after thought since it was not mentioned in the reply notice sent by the defendant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the finding of the court below mainly on the ground that there is alteration and also on the ground that Ext.B2 series have not been properly considered. On going through the judgments of the courts below, it is found that both the courts below have properly considered the evidence and have come to the conclusion that issuance of Ext.B2 series of cheques were not in relation to the transaction in question. It is also found by the courts below that in the light of the admission made by the defendant at the time of evidence, the dispute regarding the transaction cannot be sustained.
6. The specific contention seems to be that the date had been altered from 25.1.2000 to 25.12.2000. Both the courts below have considered this question and found that if the defendant had such a contention, the burden was on him to establish the said fact. No steps were taken by the defendant to have the expert's opinion in that regard. In the light of the fact that both the courts below found that there is a clear admission of the receipt of the amount and issuance of cheque, both the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the cheque had in fact been issued by the defendant.
7. Both the courts below have also considered the question regarding the issuance of Ext.B2 series of cheques and for convincing and cogent reasons found that the contentions raised by the appellant are untenable.
8. The execution of cheque and receipt of amount are found by the courts below on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case. It is not shown that the findings are either perverse or contrary to the evidence on record.
This appeal is without merits and it is liable to be dismissed. I do so.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.