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

1929 Supreme(All) 500

NIAMATULLAH, SULAIMAN
Govind Singh – Appellant
Versus
Bijay Bahadur – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Niamatullah, J. - The plaintiff-applicant brought the suit, out of which this revision has arisen, for recovery of Rs. 506-6-0, alleged to be due under a pro-note, dated 6th January 1925, executed by the defendant. The plaint recites that, in consequence of the defendant's fraudulent conduct, a stamp of only one anna was affixed on the pro-note which, on that account, is inadmissible in evidence, and that the plaintiff claims to recover on foot of the loan transaction independently of the pro-note which he relies on for a collateral purpose. The plaint, as drawn up, is more capable of the interpretation that, according to the plaintiff, the loan had been advanced on 6th January 1925, though, it is not altogether inconsistent with the case that the pro-note was executed in lieu of an old debt. The plaintiff started to establish the case of cash consideration having been paid on the execution of the pro-note referred to; but his own witnesses, under the circumstances which it is not necessary to go into, gave away that case and disclosed, what has been found by the Court below, that a pro-note had been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in 1923 and that, 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