Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Jayachandran, J
Pungothai – Appellant
Versus
S. Mariappan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit for recovery of money based on promissory note. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. loan transaction details and alleged non-repayment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. burden of proof shifts based on denial of execution. (Para 6 , 12) |
| 4. insufficient evidence leads to denial of claim. (Para 14 , 18) |
| 5. principles regarding presumption of consideration under ni act. (Para 20 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit is directed against the against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.07.2024 made in O.S.No.7842 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.
2. The suit for recovery of money based on the promissory note alleged to have executed by one Krishna Kumar and his wife Pungothai for a loan of Rs 10,00,000/- with promise to pay on demand with interest, decreed as prayed. Hence the appeal by the aggrieved defendants.
The Plaint averments:
3. Krishna Kumar (deceased) is the husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant. The plaintiff and Krishna Kumar (deceased) were employed in TNSC Bank and known to each other. In the year 2020, Krishna Kumar and his wife Pungothai (first defendant) approached the plaintiff at TNSC Bank, Head Office, NSC Bose Road, C
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
