Skip to content


Khosal Mahammad Vs. AmiruddIn Mahammad Pramanik - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Cal318,68Ind.Cas.331
AppellantKhosal Mahammad
RespondentAmiruddIn Mahammad Pramanik
Cases ReferredMoti Lai Saha v. Monmohan Gossami
Excerpt:
bond - alteration, effect of--suit on altered bond if maintainable--proof of actual loan by independent evidence. - .....to be rs. 35. the lower court has found that; the consideration money of rs. 25 was paid and the bond was altered. on these findings he has applied the principle of the leading case of master y. miller (1791) 1 sm. l. c. (11th ed.) 767 at p. 803 : 2 rule r. 899 : 4 t. rule 320 : 100 e. rule 1042, to be found at page 803 of smith's leading cases, 12th edition, volume 1, aid dismissed the suit, that the plaintiff petitioner cannot recover his claim on the bond is not disputed but what is contended is that be san sue on the original debt of rs. 25. this contention is supported by the authority of the case of moti lai saha v. monmohan gossami (4), in which it was held that even if the promissory not sued upon were a forgery the plaintiff would succeed on proof of the loan by independent.....
Judgment:

1. This Rule is unopposed. The petitioner brought a suit against the defendant on a band for Rs. 35). The defendant denied payment of consideration and also pleaded that the bond which he admittedly executed was a bond for Rs. 25 only and had been altered so as to show the amount advanced to be Rs. 35. The lower Court has found that; the consideration money of Rs. 25 was paid and the bond was altered. On these findings he has applied the principle of the leading case of Master y. Miller (1791) 1 Sm. L. C. (11th Ed.) 767 at p. 803 : 2 Rule R. 899 : 4 T. Rule 320 : 100 E. Rule 1042, to be found at page 803 of Smith's Leading Cases, 12th Edition, Volume 1, aid dismissed the suit, That the plaintiff petitioner cannot recover his claim on the bond is not disputed but what is contended is that be san sue on the original debt of Rs. 25. This contention is supported by the authority of the case of Moti Lai Saha v. Monmohan Gossami (4), in which it was held that even if the promissory not sued upon were a forgery the plaintiff would succeed on proof of the loan by independent evidence. Following this decision we hold the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 25 which he has been found to have advanced to the defendant.

2. We, accordingly, make the Rule absolute and set aside the decree of the Small Cause Court Judge. The plaintiff will get a decree for the sum of Rs. 25 only against the defendant. The parties will bear their costs in all the Courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //