Rajamma v. Vijayan
Case brief
What is this about?
This court dismissed the first appeal against a trial court decree enforcing a promissory note. Upholding the lower court's finding that the defendant admitted executing the note and the plaintiff proved consideration despite witness testimony gaps regarding cash exchange.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed; directions issued that parties bear their respective costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939
RFA.(INDIGENT) No. 53 of 2010
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMCP 33/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21-01-2010 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 643/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA DATED 21.01.2009
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT
RAJAMMA, AGED 69, D/O.VADASSERY VEETTIL MEENAKSHI AMMA, PONJANAM DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN
RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF:
VIJAYAN, S/O.THANKAM PISHARASYAR, KATTOOR PISHARATH, PONJANAM DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favor of the due execution and consideration of the promissory note was successfully rebutted.
Whether the discrepancies in witness testimony regarding the physical handing over of cash were sufficient to hold that no consideration passed for the promissory note.
Whether the trial court was justified in holding that the defendant executed the promissory note which was supported by consideration.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Rajamma
- respondent
Vijayan
Coram
P.N. Ravindran
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court