Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

GURMUKH SINGH versus JASWANT KAUR

Decided
4 April 2011
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 222 · 2011 INSC 259

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.8.2003 in R.S.A. No.1069 of 2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 222

p. 222, margin E

2

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

p. 223, margin A

3

The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for recovery Rs.2,31,000/-. He claimed that the defendant had executed pronote and receipt dated 2.5.1994 whereby the defendant borrowed a suni of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per annum demand. Since the defendant had not paid the aforesaid amount, the suit was filed.

p. 223, margin A

4

The defendant-respondent contested the suit denied the execution of the pronote and receipt in favour of plaintiff. She alleged that the aforesaid pronote and receipt were forged and fictitious documents.

p. 223, margin A

5

The trial court on the basis of evidence found that pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. However, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs claim by holding that the said documents were not duly stamped as required under the provisions of Indian Stamps Act. It ~ound by the trial court that the stamps which were affixed the pronote were removed from another document and affixed on the said pronote. ··

p. 223, margin A

6

The first appellate court and the High Court have agreed With the view of the trial court. Thus all the three courts below decided against the appellant.

p. 223, margin E

7

The findings of the courts below are findings of fact we cannot interfere with the same in this appeal. The finding that the stamps which have been affixed were removed other documents, hence, it has rightly been said that a pronote cannot be taken into consideration~

p. 223, margin F

8

Thus there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. No costs. • N.J. Appeal dismissed.

p. 223, margin G