ANDI AMBALAM Vs. SEVANI AMMAL
LAWS(MAD)-2002-8-46
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on August 08,2002

ANDI AMBALAM Appellant
VERSUS
SEVANI AMMAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SIORDAT V. KNOZYUSKI [REFERRED TO]
DAYARAM SURAJMAL V. CHANDULAL DAYABHAI [REFERRED TO]
J.N. EZEKIEL V. E.MORDECAI [REFERRED TO]
K SUDERSANAM VS. S VENKATARAO [REFERRED TO]
ROHINI CHANDRAKANT VIJAYAKAR VS. A I FERNANDES [REFERRED TO]
DHIRAJ LAL MOHAN LAL KATHEWADI VS. RANCHHOD BALARAM NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
THAKARI MALLAH VS. RAM TAHAL TEWARI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

HINDUSTHAN MOTORS LTD VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2014-12-86] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The question is whether the finding that the suit promissory note is inadmissible in evidence, because of non-cancellation of adhesive stamp, can be sustained when there is no pleading to that effect nor any objection raised at the earliest stage.
(2.)The appellant lent money to the respondent and the suit promissory note was executed in evidence thereof. The respondent denied execution of the promissory note, as also the payment of consideration. The Trial Court decreed the suit but the Appellate Court reversed it on a point that was not raised in the written statement and no issue was framed in that regard.
(3.)On the suit promissory note, in line with third respondent's left thumb impression, four stamps have been affixed and a line drawn there against with the words Sevani Ammal is the respondent. According to the Appellate Court there is absolutely no proof to show that the stamps were affixed at the time of execution or that the cancellation was also made contemporaneously and therefore dismissed the suit.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.