Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Labaram Kalita S/o Late Shadram Kalita – Appellant
Versus
Md. Kurban Ali S/o Late Jasu Mia – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and process of appeal under code. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. framing of substantial questions of law. (Para 3) |
| 3. loan repayment and acknowledgment (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. findings of fact on loan repayment (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final ruling on appeal. (Para 10) |
| 6. evidence and court findings on evidence (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. maintainability of the suit (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. S.I. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2009 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Barpeta in Money Appeal No.1/2007 whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge Barpeta in Money Suit No.17/2005 was affirmed.
3. This Court vide an order dated 04.08.2010 admitted the instant appeal by formulating the following substantial questions of law which are reproduced herein under:
“(1) Whether the findings of the learned court below that the defendant was
The court upheld the importance of documentary proof in loan repayments and affirmed that concurrent factual findings from lower courts cannot be disturbed without evidence of perversity.
The burden of proof lies with the party introducing evidence, and mere admission of documents does not constitute proof under the Evidence Act.
The appellate court modified the interest rate from 24% to 6% p.a. based on judicial discretion, emphasizing the necessity of evidence and jurisdictional validity.
The provision of clear documentation in loan transactions is essential for recovery, and the burden of proof lies with the debtor to demonstrate repayment.
The plaintiff's failure to disprove the defense taken by the defendant and the finding of the suit promissory note as not true and valid influenced the court's decision.
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
