Back
TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY
Saleha Bibi @ Chhabiz – Appellant
Versus
Asim Kumar Chatterjee – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.6,90,000/- paid to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, based on a promissory note executed by the deceased Sk. Piru (!) (!) .
The plaintiff's case was that the amount was lent for construction and business purposes, and that the promissory note was executed as evidence of this loan (!) (!) .
The defendants contested the suit, denying the existence of any loan, the execution of the promissory note, and claiming the document was fabricated to defraud them. They also challenged the consideration and the circumstances of the loan (!) (!) .
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the execution of the promissory note had been proved and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs.6,90,000/-, leading to a decree in his favor (!) .
The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the promissory note was admitted into evidence without objection, and that the evidence supported the conclusion that the note was duly executed and supported by consideration (!) (!) .
The court noted that the presumption under relevant laws favors the validity of the promissory note and the consideration unless rebutted by the defendant, which they failed to do (!) (!) .
The defendants did not lead additional evidence or challenge the authenticity of the promissory note during the proceedings, which limited their ability to dispute its validity (!) .
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court, and clarified that the appellants had not demonstrated any grounds for remand or for leading further evidence (!) (!) .
The court also confirmed that the decree remained unsatisfied and that the appellants' challenge to the case's foundation was unfounded given the evidence on record (!) (!) .
Overall, the decision underscores the importance of the execution of a promissory note and the legal presumptions supporting its validity in a suit for recovery, provided the document is admitted into evidence without objection and properly supported by evidence (!) (!) .
Let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
1. The appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 29th August, 2018 and 10th September, 2019 respectively passed in Money Suit No. 15 of 2016, on several grounds. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in the instant appeal had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,90,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant nos. 1 and 2.
2. The plaint case proceeds on the premise that the plaintiff had a longstanding acquaintance with one Sk. Piru son of Md. Jan. The plaintiff had lent and advanced an amount aggregating Rs.6,90,000/-(Rupees Six Lac Ninety Thousand) only to Sk. Piru for construction of house as also for business purpose. The plaintiff claims to be a retired service holder and had given such amount to Sk. Piru from his retirement benefits.
3. On 19th November, 2013 Sk. Piru executed a promissory note and agreed to repay Rs.6,90,000/- within 11 months from the date of execution of the promissory note to the plaintiff. Sk. Piru did not repay the loan, he expired in the year 2014. The defendants are the legal heirs of Sk. Piru. After the death of Sk. Piru the plaintiff on several occasions, demanded repayment of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
