9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- on 12.06.2007 for his family expenses and again a further sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- on 13.06.2007 for the defendants expenses towards agricultural operations with 12% interest. The appellant further states that the defendant refused to settle the amount despite repeated requests. Thus the suit came to be filed by the appellant. (3) The suit was contested by the respondent /defendant mainly on the ground that the plaintiff used to get promissory notes for double the amounts and with regard to suit promissory note, it was contented that the plaintiff obtained two blank pronotes mentioning a sum of Rs. 60,000/- under the pretext that some more amount is also due by calculating intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff had materially altered the pronote by correcting the figures and therefore, he is not entitled to the suit claim. As a result the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, in A.S.No.45/2013 dated 30.04.2014, reversing the judgement and decree of the trial Court in OS.No.108/2010, the above second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. (7) In the memorandum of grounds, the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: " (1) Whether the first appellate court is right in dismissing the suit for recovery of money without considering the legal presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on suit the plaintiff for recovery of money due on the demand promissory note. The learned counsel also pointed out that the trial Court has given findings in favour of the plaintiff on all issues and that the Appellate Court failed to consider the reasons given by the trial Court which reversing the findings of the trial Court. (9) It is true that the execution of the pronote is admitted. However in the written statement the defendant specifically denied the passing of consideration as it was recited in the document. As a matter of fact the written statement specifically refers to the figure being shown in the suit promissory notes as Rs. 60, 000/- However in the written statement a specific plea is raised by the defendant that the suit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
