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

1978 Supreme(Mad) 46

NAINAR SUNDARAM
Lakshmana Chetty – Appellant
Versus
M. S. Askar Ahmed – Respondent


Advocates:
R. Subbaraj, for Petitioner; Ikram Mohamood and K. Ramachandran for Respondents.

Judgement

ORDER :- The defendant in O. S. No. 183 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore is the petitioner. The first respondent filed a suit to recover the amount due on a promissory note dated 12-2-1970 executed by the defendant in favour of the second respondent viz., Abdulla Basha Sahib. The second respondent is said to have assigned the said promissory note in favour of the first respondent on 23rd April 1973. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the promissory note was executed towards the sale consideration of a sale deed dated 11th February 1970 and since he could not get possession and he was injuncted by the Court from taking possession, the consideration on the promissory note must be deemed to have failed and in any event the plaintiff is not a holder in due course. On the basis of the above findings issues were framed and issues 1 to 3 read as follows :-

1. Whether the suit pronote was executed for the purchase of the property as alleged by the defendant?

2. Whether the agreement between the original payee and the defendant as pleaded by

the defendant is true, valid and enforceable?

3. Whether the assignment of the pronote in




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