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

1934 Supreme(All) 97

BAJPAI
Bhoore Singh – Appellant
Versus
Karan Singh – Respondent


ORDER

Bajpai, J. - The plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of a sum, of money on the basis of a promote, said to have been executed by Bhurey Singh, and Rup Ram. Rup Ram is dead and his two sons, Beni Ram and Charan Singh, were arrayed as defendants legal representatives of Rup Ram, the deceased-executant. Bhurey Simgli is also one of the sons of Rup Ram. The pronote purported to bear the thumb impressions of Bhurey Singh and Rup Ram. Bhurey Singh denied the thumb impressions on the promissory note to be his or of his father, Ram Ram. The other two sons of Rup Ram also denied the thumb impression of Rup Ram and said that no money had been taken by Rup Ram. The promissory note along with certain other documents, containing the admitted signatures of Bhurey Ram and Rup Ram were sent to the thumb impressions expert in the office of the Deputy-Inspector-Ceneral of Police, C.I.D., U.P., and his report was that the promissory note did bear the thumb impression of Bhurey Singh, defendant.

2. The case was then taken up on 22nd November 1933 and the plaintiff was examined. An attempt was made to prove the report of the thumb impression expert by the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaint

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