Mohanan v. Raghavan
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against decree in a suit for realizaton of money based on a promissory note. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court’s findings regarding the execution of the document and the defendants’ failure to reply to notice were sustainable.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was dismissed and parties directed to bear respective costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932
AS.No. 560 of 2000(E) -----------------------------OS.1356/1995 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR ....................
APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANTS
--------------------------------------------
- *1. MOHANAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, VADAKKEKKAD VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD THALUK.(DIED)
2. SADHU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, VADAKKEKKAD VILLAGE, & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD THALUK.
3. AMMINI, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. EDAKKAD SUBRAMANIAN, VADAKKEKKAD VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD THALUK.
4. JAYAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. EDAKKAD SUBRAMANIAN, VADAKKEKKAD VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD THALUK.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court’s finding of fact regarding the execution of a promissory note based on blank signatures.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mohanan and Others
- respondent
Ragavan and Others
Coram
M.N. KRISHNAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court