JUDGMENT : SATHISH NINAN, J. 1. The defendant in a suit for money under dishonoured cheques is in appeal against the decree. 2. According to the plaintiff, on 24.08.2001 the defendant borrowed an amount of D 11 Lakhs from him. The amount was agreed to be repaid in two months. Since the amount was not returned within the time as agreed, as required by the plaintiff, the defendant issued Exts A1 and A2 cheques dated 18.11.2001 for D 6 Lakhs and D 5 Lakhs respectively. The cheques when presented for payment were dishonoured. Accordingly, the suit was laid. 3. The defendant contended that he was the mediator in respect of a property transaction between the plaintiff and one Dr. Roy. The plaintiff had agreed to sell 24.5 cents of property to the said Dr. Roy for an amount of D 62 Lakhs within a period of six months. Out of the total sale consideration, only an amount of D 52 Lakhs was paid within the time. On the intervention of the defendant, it was agreed that an extent of 12.5 cents of property from the larger extent shall be conveyed in consideration of the amount paid and that the remaining extent shall be conveyed on payment of the balance amount within a period of six month. In assurance of the said payment, the defendant issued the cheques. Subsequently though the balance sale consideration was paid and the entire property was conveyed, the defendant was kept in dark regarding the same. The cheques were not returned. The cheques are unsupported by consideration, it was contended. 4. The trial court decreed the suit, against which this appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either sides. 6. The point that arises for determination is: “Do the evidence on record indicate that the cheques, Exts A1 and A2, were issued as security in the circumstances as pleaded by the defendant?” 7. The issuance of Exts A1 and A2 cheques by the defendant are admitted. However, according to the defendant, they were signed blank cheques. 8. There are various inherent improbabilities in the defence set up. According to the defendant, the agreement between the plaintiff and Dr. Roy was to convey 24.5 cents for a consideration of D 62 Lakhs. On payment of D 52 Lakhs, an extent of 12.5 cents were conveyed. The said extent is almost half of the total extent. 8. There are various inherent improbabilities in the defence set up. According to the defendant, the agreement between the plaintiff and Dr. Roy was to convey 24.5 cents for a consideration of D 62 Lakhs. On payment of D 52 Lakhs, an extent of 12.5 cents were conveyed. The said extent is almost half of the total extent. For the said extent, out of the total consideration of D 62 lakhs an amount of D 52 Lakhs was paid. Therefore, if at all the transaction with regard to the remaining property does not go forward, the plaintiff would stand to gain, he having received consideration much in excess of the actual value of 12.5 cents. Therefore, there was no necessity for the plaintiff to obtain any security for payment of the balance consideration. 9. So also, if at all the plaintiff wanted a security to be given for the balance consideration, there was no necessity to require the defendant to give the cheques. Adequate security could have been obtained from the intended purchaser Dr. Roy. 10. The cheques when presented for payment were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Ext A5 notice issued by the plaintiff was not replied by the defendant. PW2 is a witness to the transaction. On appreciating his evidence the court found him to be a reliable witness. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to discredit the witness. On appreciating all the circumstances above, the trial court rejected the defence and upheld the plaintiff's claim. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court is on the evidence. 11. I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.