Back
AJIT BORTHAKUR
Madan Ch. Nath – Appellant
Versus
Pampa Ghosh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AJIT BORTHAKUR, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.
2. This appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) has been preferred against the impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 02.03.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Darrang at Mangaldai in Money Appeal No. 1/2016, thereby reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 05.03.2016, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Darrang at Mangaldai in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in Money Suit No. 14/2012.
3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that he instituted a money suit being Money Suit No. 14/2012 before the learned Munsiff No. 2, Darrang at Mangaldai against the present respondents/defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,000,00/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) (Rs. 1,80,000/- principal and Rs. 20,000/- interest), which amount the husband (since deceased) of the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 Late Dilip Ghosh borrowed for the purposes of development of his business establishment and for his treatment in Mumbai by executing two hand-notes, dated 01.05.2010 and 30.12.20
The necessity of proving consideration and the executant's awareness of the document's contents for establishing a valid contract, and the admissibility of documents as promissory notes under the Neg....
Court deemed the execution of the pronote unproven due to insufficient evidence by the plaintiff and reliance on expert evidence favoring the defendant.
The court upheld the trial Court's judgment confirming the validity of the promissory note and the plaintiff's entitlement to recovery, emphasizing the burden of proof on the plaintiff.
The appellate court improperly reversed a trial decision regarding the authenticity of signatures on a pronote without addressing the trial court's valid evidence comparison under Section 73 of the I....
The burden of proof shifts to the defendant if the plaintiff proves the execution of the pro-note. Admissibility of private handwriting expert's opinion under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC.
The plaintiff must prove the foundational fact of execution of promissory notes to claim the benefit of presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The burden of proof shifts to the defendant when the court finds that the disputed signatures match the admitted signature. Failure to examine a key witness may not be fatal to the plaintiff's case.
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
