SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1939 Supreme(Cal) 129

LATIFUR RAHMAN, B. K. MUKHERJEA
Hare Krishna Panigrahi – Appellant
Versus
Jogneswar Panda – Respondent


JUDGMENT

B.K. Mukherjea, J. - This appeal is on behalf of defendant 1 and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for enforcement of a mortgage bond. The bond is alleged to have been executed by defendant 1 and his brother, Naba Krishna, to secure an advance of Rs. 50 only. The brother subsequently died leaving defendant 1 as his sole heir. Defendants 2 to 4 are the subsequent purchasers of the mortgage property and defendant 5 is said to be the plaintiff's benamidar, in whose name the mortgage bond was taken. A number of defences were taken by defendants 1 to 4 and their contentions in substance were that there was no due attestation of the mortgage bond, as required by law; that there was no consideration for the same and defendant 5 was not the benamidar of the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the endorsement on the back of the bond was not a genuine endorsement and the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court overruled all the other defences of the defendants except the one raised on the question of attestation. It held that the mortgage bond could not be admitted in evidence as the plaintiff did not call even one of the attesting witnesses to prove its ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top