Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.53 seconds)Thayyil Mammad And Five Ors. vs Purayil Mammad And Eight Ors. on 10 August, 1920
14. Seithammarakkath Mammad v. Koyommatath Mammad AIR 57
Kerala 63 relied upon by the Defendant relates to a document which only
had a thumb impression and was on blank paper without stamp. The said
RFA 331/2012 Page 7 of 9
judgment is clearly distinguishable. The Defendant has also relied upon
section 118 of the Negotiable and Instruments Act to argue that the
promissory note of Rs.7 Lakhs was not in continuation of the earlier
promissory note of Rs.10 Lakhs and since Rs.7 Lakhs was not given at the
time when the promissory note dated 3 rd December, 2001 was executed,
there is no presumption under Section 118 of the Act.
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Tatipamula Naga Raju vs Pattem Padmavathi on 24 February, 2011
12. The Defendant places reliance on Tatipamula Naga Raju v. Pattem
RFA 331/2012 Page 6 of 9
Padmavathi AIR 2011 SC 1499 to argue that even if the signatures are
admitted, if the promissory note is tampered, then it cannot be held that
money is payable. The facts in the said case were that the figure '1' had
been added with Rs.25,000/- making the amount due as Rs.1,25,000/-. In the
present case, the promissory note mentions in words the amount of Rs.7
Lakhs and hence the said judgement is clearly distinguishable.
Section 118 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 118 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr vs Smt. Asha Devi Kasotiya on 17 December, 2015
The Defendant also relies upon
the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Usha Devi (2015) 8 SCC 672 to argue that
the Plaintiff had to succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot
depend upon the weakness of the case of the Defendant. In the present case,
the Plaintiff had filed mark 'A' which is a copy of the promissory note of
Rs.10 Lakhs and also the original promissory note Ex.PW-1/1. The
signatures are admitted. The Defendant did not care to do the
admission/denial and the Plaintiff and her son both appeared and gave their
testimonies. The Defendant, apart from taking contradictory pleas, did not
set up any justifiable defence. Moreover, the manner in which in his cross
examination the Defendant denied his signatures also destroys his
credibility. He even tried to blame his counsel for drafting the affidavit in
the manner it was drafted. Thus, the case of the Plaintiff has in fact been
proved. By filing the original promissory note and giving oral evidence, the
Plaintiff discharged her burden fully.
1