Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
Thirumalai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.61 of 2024 dated 16.09.2025 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tenkasi, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.152 of 2019 dated 03.09.2024 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.
2. The appellant is the defendant (hereinafter referred as 'defendant'). The respondent / plaintiff (hereinafter referred as 'plaintiff') filed a suit in O.S.No.152 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi for recovery of Rs.7,34,097/- due on the promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
3. The defendant filed his written statement and contested the suit. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2024 dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.61 of 2024 and the learned Principal District Judge, Tenkasi, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned j
The court affirmed that in appeals under Section 100 CPC, substantial questions of law must be present for intervention; otherwise, factual findings of lower courts are conclusive.
The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot re-evaluate evidence or facts determined by lower courts unless there is a clearly established er....
The validity of a promissory note is upheld when supported by evidence of execution and consideration, and a second appeal requires substantial questions of law to be present.
The presumption of consideration in promissory notes under the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on defendants to prove non-existence of consideration.
The main legal point established is the burden of proof in a recovery of money case, where the plaintiff's evidence of the execution of the promissory note prevailed over the defendant's contradictor....
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless proven perverse, emphasizing the finality of first appellate court's decisions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
