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

1937 Supreme(Mad) 403

MADHAVAN NAIR
Durairangam Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Govindarajulu Naidu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. Second defendant is the appellant. He is the surviving son of one Ramaswami Pillai who died in October, 1926. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the appellant and his brother for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,250 for principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 4th October, 1925, executed by their late father. The promissory note was for Rs. 3,750. The plaintiffs case is that the money was lent to Ramaswami Pillai and that the promissory note was executed by him at Tanjore between 8 and 9 A.M., on 4th October, 1925. The promissory note recites that the money was borrowed by the deceased for his contract business. The deceased was a P.W.D. and Abkari Contractor, on a large scale with his headquarters at Cuddalore in the South Arcot District. The appellant and his brother contended that the promissory note was a forgery, that their father had no necessity to borrow money and that the plaintiff had no means to lend the money. They also contended that the suit was barred by limitation.

2. The lower Court held that Ramaswami Pillai executed the suit promissory note and borrowed money thereunder from the plaintiff. It also held that the suit was





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