Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

EVIDENCEC ACT AND CONTRACT ACT

(Querist) 09 December 2008 This query is : Resolved 
SUPPOSE B HAS ADVANCED CERTAIN SUM MONEY TO Z,THROUGH A CHEQUE,AS A LOAN,WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTRY EVIDENCE AT 1%RATE OF INTEREST PER MONTH.AND B MAKES NOTE OF SAME IN HIS DIARY, AFTER EXPIREY OF ONE YEAR,BOTH PRINCIPAL AND MONTHLY INTEREST OF THE AMOUNT ADVANCED ARE DUE FROM Z,WHICH HAS BEEN ALSO RECORDED BY B IN HIS DIRAY .AFTER SOME TIME BOTH B AND Z HAVE EXPIRED. AND Z'S SON AGREES TO PAY ONLY HALF OF THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO B's SON THROUGH A CHEQUE. AND DISAGREES TO PAY REST OF AMOUNT .CAN B's SON SUE Z's SON FOR REST OF THE AMOUNT .ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES MADE IN B's DIARY AND ALSO CHEQUE CLEARED IN A'PASS BOOK OR BANK ENTRY UNDER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT .AND WHETHER DIARY IS VALUABLE EVIDENCE UNDER SEC 34 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ,ACCOMPANIED BY ENTRY IN THE PASS BOOK . PLEACE GIVE REASONS FOR YOU ANSWERS
THANK YOU
Raghavendra (Querist) 09 December 2008
A
Shyam Ji Srivastava (Expert) 09 December 2008
NO
Manish Singh (Expert) 10 December 2008
in my view since B has given a loan vide a cheque it could easily be traced for what purpose it was given whether a loan or otherwise by corroborating evidences. so he can file a suit for recovery of the amount from the son.
anonymus (Expert) 12 December 2008
HE CAN FILE A SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY BASED ON THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION, subject ot proof as stated by mr. manish. further the person has to prove that such loan was used for the family so that the son is made liable to repay.
J K Agrawal (Expert) 13 December 2008
Subject to law of limitation B's sons can sue Z' sons and note book is admissible in evidence. (But really not an easy task)
Raghavendra (Querist) 17 December 2008
RESPECTED SIR

I WANT TO KNOW THAT CAN THIS CASE BE WON FIRSTLY ON THE BASIS OF ENTERY MADE B'S PASS BOOK TAKING IT AS PRIMARY EVIDENCE.AND SECONDALY ON BASIS ON ENTERY MADE IN B'S DIARY TAKING IT AS SECONDAY ENIDENCE. THIRDLY AMOUNT PAID BY Z'S SON TO B'S SON THROUGH CHEQUE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS ESTOPLE ON PART OF B'SON OF THE FACT THAT HIS FATHER HAS TAKEN THE LOAN .OR SINCE NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PASSED FROM B'S SON TO Z'S SON,CAN Z'S SON ESCAPE FROM THE LIABILTY .
anantha krishna n.v. Advocate (Expert) 20 December 2008
legal issues apart,
first of all z's son is so nice to discharge his father's debt. take the amount given.
If you cannot succeed the suit proposed, you would not get even this amount.

as regards legal advice, you have already got it from our other friends. One addition is: unless Z subscribed his signature to the notigs in B diary, there is no much use. After all I can write what ever i want to. As regards the cheque, your query is silent as to in whose name B issued cheque. is it in Z name or self? Whether Z got this cheque to his account or not? Even if this is true, can't Z son take a plea that the amount given by B is infact loan taken by B from Z and that he repaid it to Z?
Hope this makes clear the length and breadth of the litigation. Most importantly, you lose a good friend, in the name of Z's son.
regards


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :





Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query