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

1928 Supreme(Mad) 363

MADHAVAN NAIR
Venkateswara Iyer – Appellant
Versus
Ramanatha Dheekshitar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant for the recovery of money due under a promissory-note executed to him by the defendant Though the promissory-note now bears a stamp it has been found by the lower appellate Court that it was not stamped at -the time of its execution. The defendant raised the plea that the promissory-note " is not valid according to law and cannot be admitted," obviously because it was not properly stamped; but there was no issue whether the promissory-note was inadmissible in evidence on the ground that it, has not been duly stamped. The issues that were framed related to the other pleas raised by the defendant. These issues were, whether the discharge pleaded is true, whether the endorsement for Rs. 200 for interest is true, whether the suit is barred by limitation and what relief the plaintiff is entitled to. Overruling the contentions of the defendant on these issues, the District Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree.

2. In appeal, seeing that the contention whether the promissory-note is duly stamped or not would materially affect the decision of the case, the learned Subordinate Judge took a










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