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

1990 Supreme(Ker) 5

VARGHESE KALLIATH
Marimuthu Kounder – Appellant
Versus
Radhakrishnan – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. This is an appeal by the first defendant. The suit is on a promissory note. The promissory note is Ext.Al. It is dated 20-6-1975. The first defendant executed a promissory note, Ext.A2 on 15-12-1972 in favour of second defendant. The amount covered by Ext. A2 promissory note was Rs.7,500/- The second defendant endorsed this promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 5-6-1973. Thereafter, the first defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff showing the consideration of Ext.A2 and the interest on the amount advanced under Ext.A2 as the consideration for Ext.Al promissory note. Even after demand, the first defendant did not pay the amount. So, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

2. The first defendant contended that he has not executed the promissory note. He also contended that there is no consideration for the promissory note. The only question that has to be decided is whether the promissory note is a genuine one or not. Otherwise, the only point that has to be seriously considered is whether the first defendant has executed the promissory note. Normally, the promissory note does not require witnesses. It is really a difficult task for the plain







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