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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 163

P.SATHASIVAM
N. Abdul Azeez – Appellant
Versus
S. Mohamed Hanifa and Others – Respondent


Appearing Advocates: For

Judgment :-

Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed O.S. No.415 of 1978 on the file of Sub Court, Coimbatore, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,795/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 25-4-1975 under Ex. A-l. According to the plaintiff, the defendants executed a promissory note for Rs. 5000/- on 25-4-1975 in favour of Kairoon Bibi on 26-3-78 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent. The plaintiff got assignment of the promissory note from Kairoon Bibi on payment of consideration provided in the promissory note. Since the defendants failed to comply with the demand as per his notice dated 21-4-1978, he laid the above suit.

2. The first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the 2nd defendant with the following contentions :-

The first defendant did not execute the suit promissory note being along with the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff's assignor and the 2nd defendant did not receive the consideration of Rs. 5000/- from the plaintiff's assignor. Therefore, the alleged assignment is not valid and the assignment is purposely made to, to circumvent the provisions of law. The assignor is none else than the sister of the


























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