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

1986 Supreme(Ker) 247

VARGHESE KALLIATH
SANTHA – Appellant
Versus
RAJAPPAN PILLAI – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Plaintiff filed a suit on a promissory note for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1150/-. The defendant contended that he has not executed any promissory note. Further he said that there were some transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant and in connection with these transactions, some papers stamped and signed were given to the plaintiff. I may at once say that in the written statement, the defendant said only that some papers with stamps affixed were given but did not say that those papers contained his signature. His case is that the plaintiff fabricated a promissory note in one of these papers given by him. In evidence the defendant said that the alleged promissory note was not executed by him and that he has given blank papers stamped and signed for the purpose of some other transaction between himself and the plaintiff.

2. The trial court, after considering the evidence, found that the promissory note was not genuine and dismissed the suit. The appellate court, after a re-appraisal of the evidence, did not agree with the trial court. It decreed the suit. Now the defendant files this civil revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petiti













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