Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.34 seconds)
Brij Basi vs Moti Ram And Ors. on 5 May, 1982 cites

Thorappa Devanappa vs Umedmalji And Ors. on 4 April, 1923

25. This leads to the consideration of the question raised by the learned counsel for defendants Nos. l and 2 that even so this Court could not, while allowing the appeal of the third defendant and relieving him from the liability under the decree of the lower apppllate court, give a decree to the plaintiff against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In view of these findings it is not necessary to go into the question whether the plaintiff could get a decree against the third defendant on the foot of the promissory note on the basis that it was forged. I may, however observe that Section 58 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not have protected the plaintiff as the holder in due course, in a ease like the present one, if it were found that the promissory note was forged. See Jai Narain v. Mahboob Bux ((1906) 3 All LJ 203) and Thorappa Devenappa v. Umedmalji (AIR 1924 Bom 205).
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1