9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt, Arakonam, is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. (2) The appellant filed the suit in OS.No.665/2014 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,15,800/- together with interest at 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Originally the suit was filed against the 1st defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died and defendants 2 to 4 were impleaded as the Legal Rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiff's husband is the brother of the deceased 1st defendant and the suit has been filed on the basis of a fabricated pronote as a counter blast to a suit filed by the deceased 1st defendant for partition and separate possession of the joint family and ancestral properties. Since the suit pronote was described by the deceased 1st defendant as a forged document, the Trial Court has framed a spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant/plaintiff miserably failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1-suit pronote as well as the endorsement under Ex.A4. The Lower Appellate Court further held that the appellant did not prove the passing of consideration under Ex.A1. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the present Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff. (7) The appellant has raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;' (8) The first question of law raised by the appellant is on the assumption that the plaintiff/appellant has let in evidence to prove due execution of the Pronote. When the Courts below have concurrently held that the Pronote is not proved in the manner known of law, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, cannot be applied. Though the learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
