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

1957 Supreme(Ker) 51

VARADARAJA IYENGAR
Seithammarakkath Mammad – Appellant
Versus
Koyommatath Mammad – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. This Second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit on a promissory note which was decreed by the Munsiff but dismissed by the Subordinate Judge in appeal by the defendant.

2. The promissory note in suit purports to be executed on 18.3.1949 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff or his order and is for a sum of Rs. 500/-. It is recited that Rs. 300/- out of the sum was borrowed on a previous occasion and the balance of Rs. 200/- was a present advance. It is written in the bottom portion of a half sheet of foolscap paper and contains not alone the signature but also the thumb impressions of the executant. The plaint averred that the defendant falsely issued Ext. B1 notice through counsel on 20.6.1949 alleging entrustment with the plaintiff by the defendant of a blank sheet of paper containing the defendant's thumb impression for particular purpose and calling back for its return because the purpose was unfulfilled evidently suggesting that the promissory note was a manipulation and with a view to forestall this suit. The promissory note was filed as Ext. Al and the suit was laid soon after on 28.6.1949.

3. The defendant, by his written statement denied both execution




















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