Annadurai v. Rajendran
Case brief
What is this about?
In a second appeal against a reversal of a suit for recovery based on a promissory note, the High Court held that a material alteration made to the date of the note by the plaintiff barred the suit under statutory provisions.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is affirmed. No costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
Second Appeal No.267 of 2015
Annadurai .. Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff
-vs-
Rajendran .. Respondent/Appellant/Defendant
Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2013 made in A.S.No.73 of 2012 by the Principal Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2011 in O.S.No.194 of 2007 by the District Munsif Court, Sirkali.
For Appellant :: Mr.P.Veeraraghavan For Respondent :: Mr.S.Sounthar JUDGMENT
The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.48,250/- with subsequent interest based on a promissory note dated 03.09.2004 said to have been executed by the defendant.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment ignoring the date in the promissory note contradicting the notation regarding the year is contrary to law?
Whether the lower appellate court was sustainable in rejecting the claim based on limitation and material alteration despite pleadings?
Whether the judgment was vitiated by lack of evidence regarding material alteration ignoring the scribe's evidence?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Annadurai
- respondent
Rajendran
Coram
K.Ravichandrababu
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court