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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 956

RAJU
Dhanakodi Padayachi – Appellant
Versus
Mutbukunumwarai – Respondent


Advocates:
R.Aravind, for T. V. Balakrishnan, for Appellant.

Judgment :

The defendant in O.S. No.573 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, who succeeded before the trial court, but lost in the first appellate court, is the appellant in the above second appeal.

2. The respondent herein has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.400 and Rs.2,400 with interest due thereon as said to be due under two promissory notes dated 22. 1971 and 12. 1973 respectively. The defendant/ appellant disputed the suit claim. So far as the promissory note dated 22. 1971 is concerned, the plea was that the same was not fully supported by consideration and the claim of the basis of the said promissory note has to fail on account of partial consideration only. As far as the promissory note dated 12. 1973 as also the endorsement dated 1. 1976 thereon was concerned, the claim of the defendant was that they were fabricated documents and not supported by any consideration. At the time of trial, both parties adduced oral evidence and so far as the plaintiff is concerned, he adduced documentary evidence also and there was no documentary evidence on the side of the defendant. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned trial Judge susta











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