1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court affirms cadjan voucher as valid evidence in Veerappa Chettiar case</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions regarding the validity of the cadjan voucher as evidence of a deposit made by Veerappa Chettiar with ... - Issues:1. Validity of the cadjan voucher as evidence of deposit.2. Interpretation of the cadjan voucher as a promissory note.3. Admissibility of the cadjan voucher based on stamp duty.4. Suit barred by the Law of Limitation.Detailed Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case was the validity of the cadjan voucher as evidence of the deposit made by Veerappa Chettiar with the joint family. The Trial Court and the High Court both found the cadjan voucher to be genuine and admissible as evidence. The courts held that the document was duly proved and admitted it as evidence. The defendants' argument that they were not bound by the transaction due to representing the junior branch of the family was dismissed, as the karta had the authority to execute the document, making it binding on all members of the joint family.2. The interpretation of the cadjan voucher as a promissory note was another crucial issue raised by the appellants. They argued that the document constituted a promissory note due to the language used, particularly the phrase 'we shall pay the said sum.' However, both courts concluded that the cadjan voucher was a receipt evidencing the deposit, not a promissory note. The courts emphasized that the intention of the parties and the circumstances of the case determined the nature of the transaction, which was deemed a deposit rather than a loan.3. The admissibility of the cadjan voucher based on stamp duty was also contested by the appellants. They claimed that the document should have been stamped as a promissory note, rendering it inadmissible as evidence. However, Section 36 of the Stamp Act precluded the appellants from challenging the admission of the document on stamp duty grounds at a later stage of the proceedings. Therefore, this objection was deemed invalid by the courts.4. The final issue revolved around whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by the Law of Limitation. The appellants argued that the suit should have been filed within three years of the execution of the cadjan voucher or that a demand for the deposit was made more than three years before the suit was instituted. However, the courts found that the cadjan voucher was a receipt, not a promissory note, and that the demand made by the plaintiffs was not against the defendants within the prescribed period. Therefore, the suit was held to be within the limitation period, and this contention by the appellants was dismissed.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal and ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
