Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, P.KRISHNA KUMAR
Shaiju – Appellant
Versus
Manikandan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the suit for recovery and the defense of fabrication. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. inconsistency in pleadings undermines the credibility of the transaction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. failure to discharge the burden of proof regarding execution of a document. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The suit for recovery of money based on a demand promissory note was decreed in part by the trial court by the judgment impugned in this appeal. The appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment to the extent the plaint claim was declined.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff contended that, in June 2016, the defendant, who was a close acquaintance, requested a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- for procuring gold for commercial purposes. The plaintiff allegedly lent him Rs.48,00,000/- by withdrawing Rs.13,00,000/- on 27.06.2016, Rs.18,00,000/- on 02.08.2016 and another Rs.17,00,000/- on 19.08.2016. On 23.08.2016, the defendant allegedly executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.48,00,000/- carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Since the d
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
