Noushad v. Aliar
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed a regular second appeal challenging a judgment where the defendant’s signature in an agreement for payment of a debt was alleged to be forged. The court found the signatures did not match, sustaining the lower appellate court's dismissal of the suit.
What did the court decide?
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/14TH MAGHA, 1938
RSA.No. 237 of 2010 (C )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26-11-2009 IN AS 193/2009 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29-08-2006 IN OS 10/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF::
NOUSHAD, AGED 35, S/O.SAITHUPILLA, EDAPPARAYIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR
SRI.P.VISWANATHAN
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT::
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an agreement to pay a time-barred debt is maintainable under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act.
Whether the suit was maintainable as a contingent contract under Section 31 and 32 of the Indian Contract Act.
Whether there is a similarity between the defendant’s signature in the impugned agreement and his signatures in other court records.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
NOUSHAD
- respondent
ALIAAR
Coram
B.KEMAL PASHA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court