Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1966 DIGILAW 112 (KER)

ATHICHAN KOCHU v. MATHAI

1966-06-02

M.MADHAVAN NAIR

body1966
Judgment :- 1. This appeal is by the first counter-petitioner in a petition under S.8 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, XXXI of 1958. He denied the transaction of debt. Ext. P-1 is the hypothecation on which the petition by the creditor is based. The Munsiff held the hypothecation not genuine and therefore dismissed the petition; but the Subordinate Judge, on appeal, has reversed him and found Ext. P-1 to be genuine and remitted the petition for fixation of the amount payable under the Act. Hence, this second appeal. 2. Counsel for respondent contends that there lies no second appeal as under S.23(a) of the Act only one appeal is provided against an order under S.8 sub-section (1). An order under S.8 sub-section (1) can only be an order fixing the amount of the debt. The controversy here is as to the reality of the debt which is outside the scope of S.8 sub-section (1). As the order under appeal is an adjudication that determines the rights of the parties with regard to a controversy in a civil matter, it is appealable under S.96 CPC. and as the findings are divergent in the courts below the second appeal is competent under S.100(d) CPC. I hold the appeal competent. 3. Ext. P-2 is another hypothecation between the same parties which is admitted to be true. A comparison of the signatures and finger prints on Exts. P-1 and P-2 show considerable similarity among them. PW. I and PW. 2 are the attestors to Ext. P-1. They have sworn to their attestation. No doubt, PW.1 has stated that he did not see the executant actually signing the deed; but that is unnecessary under S.3 of the Transfer of Property Act. He has not been asked whether he had received any personal acknowledgment from the executant. His say that he did attest the deed implies that be received such an acknowledgment and as the same has not been challenged in cross-examination the attestation cannot be held to be invalid. 4. In the result, the finding of the Court below that Ext. P-1 is genuine is accepted. The second appeal fails and is dismissed hereby. Dismissed.