K.P.O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJEE versus PAPPU MANJOORAN AND ANR.

K.P.O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJEE versus PAPPU MANJOORAN AND ANR.

The promissory note Ex. A1 was supported by legally enforceable consideration, namely the delivery of possession of 3 acres 44 cents of land and the building, as proved by documentary and oral evidence. The presumption under Section 118(a) was not available due to pleading of different consideration, but valid consideration was established and the suit was rightly decreed.

Parties
Appellant Defendant: K.P.O. Moideenkutty Hajee; Respondent Plaintiff: P Appu Manjooran; Respondent: Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Presumption as to Consideration, Burden of Proof, Promissory Notes
Negotiable Instruments Evidence Presumption as to Consideration Burden of Proof Promissory Notes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.P.O. Moideenkutty Hajee

Appellant Defendant

P Appu Manjooran

Respondent Plaintiff

Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the promissory note Ex. A1 was supported by valid consideration
  2. 2 Applicability of presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act when different consideration is pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The promissory note Ex. A1 was supported by legally enforceable consideration, namely the delivery of possession of 3 acres 44 cents of land and the building, as proved by documentary and oral evidence. The presumption under Section 118(a) was not available due to pleading of different consideration, but valid consideration was established and the suit was rightly decreed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Impleadment allowed
  • Leave granted