Vasu v. Premalatha
Case brief
What is this about?
In a money suit, the High Court allowed the first defendants' second appeal against a lower appellate decree. The Court held that specific denial of execution and the plaintiff's non-examination meant the evidence was insufficient to prove due execution of the promissory note.
What did the court decide?
The decree and judgment of the lower appellate court set aside; suit dismissed without costs to the parties.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/23RD MAGHA 1934
SA.No. 794 of 1999 (C)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS.109/1993 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS.416/1985 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR
APPELLANT(S):
- VASU, S/O. NELLIPARAMBIL APPUTTY, VEKKOD DESOM, SREE NARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK
- KARTHIKEYAN, S/O. KOONIYARA KOCHURAMAN, SREE NARAYANA PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK
- SULOJANA, W/O. IST APPELLANT, D/O. EDACHALIL KRISHNAN VAIDYAR, SREE NARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK
BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proof of or admission of signatures in a disputed document amounts to admission of execution of a promissory note when execution is denied.
Whether the lower appellate court was justified in drawing a presumption of execution under Sec. 118 of the N.I. Act when the execution was denied and the plaintiff was not examined.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
VASU AND ORS.
- respondent
PREMALATHA
Coram
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court