2004 (3) TMI 821

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... its being Original Suit No. 6 of 1982 and Original Suit No. 48 of 1982 for recovery of a sum of ₹ 2,56,000/- with interest thereon. These two suits were filed on the basis of five promissory notes which are dated 17.12.1979, 16.1.1980, 14.2.1980, 17.3.1980 and 10.4.1980. These promissory notes were for sums of ₹ 56,000/-, 50,000/-, 50,000/-, 50,000/- and 50,000/- respectively. 6. The Appellants claimed that there were chit fund transactions between them and the Respondents. The Appellants claimed that in respect of the chit fund transactions, a large number of blank documents were got signed from them. Their defence was that apart from monies received under the chit fund transactions No. other amounts were received by the App .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Appellants also gave evidence. They got marked a number of other promissory notes which were also got executed from them. They got marked demand notices in respect of amount due under the chit fund transactions. Their evidence was that No. amounts were advanced under these promissory notes and that these were being misused. 10. The trial Court examined the promissory notes which had been marked 'Ext.A1 to A5'. The trial Court also examined the other documents and concluded that all the documents, even though supposedly executed on different dates, were in the same hand writing and in the same ink and admittedly all of them had been filled in by the clerk. The trial Court noted that the 1st Respondent had not produced books of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ver, in this case it has been established that there were chit fund transactions between the parties. It is also established that in respect of those chit fund transactions a sum of approximately ₹ 25,000/- was due and payable. It is established that that amount was not paid. It is an admitted position that No. suit was filed for recovery of that amount. Further having seen the suit promissory notes, as well as the other promissory notes, we are in agreement with the trial Court that all of them appear to have been got executed on the same day. All of them are in same hand writing and in the same ink. It is impossible to believe that over a period of two years the same pen could have been continued to be used. It is thus clear that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X