TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate court dismisses money recovery suit over discrepancies and tampered documents.</h1> <h3>Chaudhuri Janardan Parida and Ors. Versus Prandhan Das</h3> The appellate court dismissed the suit for money recovery due to discrepancies in the consideration amount and alleged tampering with documents by the ... - Issues:- Dismissal of suit for recovery of money due to discrepancies in the consideration amount and alleged non-payment.- Allegations of tampering with documents by the plaintiffs.- Applicability of the principle regarding alterations in legal documents.- Bar on using oral evidence if terms of a contract are in writing under Section 91 of the Evidence Act.- Time limitation for filing the suit and acknowledgment of debt.Analysis:1. The second appeal arose from a suit for money recovery dismissed by lower courts due to discrepancies in the consideration amount. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 1500 remained unpaid out of Rs. 4000, while the defendant contended full payment. The defense included an independent agreement not mentioned in the plaint, leading to the suit's dismissal on various grounds.2. The courts found the plaintiffs' claim of unpaid Rs. 1500 false, holding the entire consideration paid. The presence of an independent agreement for Rs. 1500 was acknowledged but not considered as the plaintiffs' primary case. The defense argued part payment based on the plaintiffs' actions, leading to the suit's dismissal.3. The plaintiffs' reliance on documents Exs. 1 and 2 was challenged due to alleged tampering. Ex. 1, a letter promising payment or document retrieval, was found mutilated, affecting its authenticity. Ex. 2, an adjusted account, was also questioned for alterations, impacting its credibility and the plaintiffs' case.4. The judgment highlighted the legal principle barring oral evidence if a contract's terms are in writing under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. The mutilation of Ex. 1 and alterations in Ex. 2 rendered them unreliable, affecting the plaintiffs' ability to prove their case.5. The judgment discussed the time limitation for filing the suit, noting it was six years after the letter's writing, exceeding the reasonable period for action. The acknowledgment of debt and payment in Ex. 2 were disputed due to alleged tampering, further weakening the plaintiffs' case.6. The defense's denial of payment and promises, coupled with the discrepancies in the documents presented, formed the basis for the appeal's dismissal. The courts emphasized the importance of maintaining document integrity and adherence to legal principles in determining case outcomes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
