Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.01 seconds)
Krishnankutty vs Velayudhan on 12 January, 2005 cites

Madam Pillai vs Athinarayana Pillai And Anr. on 13 October, 1924

This is a case in which Ext.A1 promissory note is admittedly in the handwriting of the 2nd defendant who has also confessed that he has affixed his signature thereto. Even though both the defendants have contended that Ext.A1 promissory note is invalid due to material alteration for the reason that the signature of the 1st defendant appearing in Ext.A1 promissory note is a forgery, the finding of the court below is that the forgery of the 1st defendant's signature might have been committed by the 2nd defendant. Since the 2nd defendant is a party to the document, he cannot take advantage of his own wrong to set up the plea that Ext.A1 is bad due to material alteration within the meaning of sec.87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (vide Madam Pillai@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA v. Adhinarayana Pillai - AIR 1925 Madras 929). The@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA defendants initially filed a joint vakalath. Thereafter they engaged two separate lawyers to develop their defence. Even if this court upholds the finding of the lower court regarding material alteration, the forgery having been committed by the 2nd defendant, a decree should have been given atlest against the 2nd defendant, who admittedly executed the promissory note which was also admittedly prepared in his handwriting.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Damji Hirji vs Mahomedalli Essabhoy on 16 February, 1939

The 2nd defendant also offers an explanation for not receiving back the document from the plaintiff since the same was an incomplete one. When examined as D.W.2, the 2nd defendant has stuck to the above version. It was not seriously challenged in cross-examination also. The rights and liabilities under a negotiable instrument arise only if what is delivered under sec.46 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a completed negotiable instrument (see Damji Hirji v. Mahomedalli Essabhoy AIR@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 1939 Bombay 461). Going by the plea raised by the 2nd@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA defendant and his deposition from the witness box, what was handed over by him to the plaintiff was an incomplete document. It did not contain the signature of the 1st defendant. There is no dispute that the admitted signature of the 2nd defendant is not on the revenue stamps affixed thereto, but appears above the stamps. Even the plaintiff examined as P.W.1 has stated that the 2nd defendant signed the document after preparing the same and when the plaintiff asked him as to why he put his signature without affixing the stamps, the 2nd defendant told him that he forgot about the same and took the stamps from his pocket and affixed the same beside his signature. But actually the stamps are seen affixed below the signature of the 2nd defendant. The evidence of P.W.2 is also to the effect that when the 2nd defendant put his signature, Ext.A1 did not contain the stamps or the signature of the 1st defendant on those stamps. No doubt, both P.Ws.1 and 2 would say that after the 2nd defendant signed the instrument, the stamps were affixed and the 1st defendant signed on the stamps. This part of their evidence is taken strong exception to by D.Ws.1 and 2. Thus, what the 2nd defendant signed was an unstamped instrument styled as a joint promissory note containing a joint undertaking by the two defendants to return the sum of Rs.30,000/-.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Santhu Mohideen Pillai Tharaganar vs Jamal Mohammad Jamaludin Labbai on 18 July, 1928

On the contrary, the definite case pleaded by both the 1st and the 2nd defendants is that it was the plaintiff who forged the signature of the 1st defendant. If so, the plaintiff cannot take advantage of the observation by the trial court to contend for the position that in a case where the material alteration is not committed by the plaintiff, but by the 2nd defendant, the defence of material alteration should not be permitted to be raised by the defendants. Similarly, the plaintiff cannot claim a decree against the 2nd defendant alone on the basis of the admission by the 2nd defendant of his signature in Ext.A1 promissory note which is a joint one imposing a joint liability and which contains the forged signature of the 1st defendant. The decision reported in AIR 1925 Madras 929 (supra) was refused to be@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA followed in Santhu Mohideen Pillai v. Jamaludin Labbai@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AIR 1928 Madras 1092 which was, in turn, approved in@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Kumaraswami Desikar v. Dhiraviam Pillai - AIR 1935@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Madras 40 wherein it is held as follows:-@@ AAAAAAAAA "The suit was laid on a promissory note said to@@ i have been executed by the two defendants. Defendant 1 admitted execution but pleaded that he was not liable on the note. Defendant 2 denied execution and the lower Court found that his signature was forged. A decree has been granted against defendant 1 and the present revision petition is filed against that decree. The general trend of decisions in this Court is that a decree cannot be given on a document which is found to be a forgery.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Kumaraswami Desikar vs Dhiraviam Pillai on 2 October, 1934

On the contrary, the definite case pleaded by both the 1st and the 2nd defendants is that it was the plaintiff who forged the signature of the 1st defendant. If so, the plaintiff cannot take advantage of the observation by the trial court to contend for the position that in a case where the material alteration is not committed by the plaintiff, but by the 2nd defendant, the defence of material alteration should not be permitted to be raised by the defendants. Similarly, the plaintiff cannot claim a decree against the 2nd defendant alone on the basis of the admission by the 2nd defendant of his signature in Ext.A1 promissory note which is a joint one imposing a joint liability and which contains the forged signature of the 1st defendant. The decision reported in AIR 1925 Madras 929 (supra) was refused to be@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA followed in Santhu Mohideen Pillai v. Jamaludin Labbai@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AIR 1928 Madras 1092 which was, in turn, approved in@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Kumaraswami Desikar v. Dhiraviam Pillai - AIR 1935@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Madras 40 wherein it is held as follows:-@@ AAAAAAAAA "The suit was laid on a promissory note said to@@ i have been executed by the two defendants. Defendant 1 admitted execution but pleaded that he was not liable on the note. Defendant 2 denied execution and the lower Court found that his signature was forged. A decree has been granted against defendant 1 and the present revision petition is filed against that decree. The general trend of decisions in this Court is that a decree cannot be given on a document which is found to be a forgery.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1