M.VENUGOPAL
Subbarayulu – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmanan – Respondent
M. Venugopal, J.—The Appellant/Defendant had preferred this present Appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2002 in OS No. 89 of 1999 passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam.
2. The trial Court, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, while passing the Judgment in OS No. 89 of 1999 on 1.1.2002, had, inter alia, observed that on 15.8.1998 the Appellant/Defendant had received a sum of Rs.3,00,000 from the Respondent/Plaintiff towards loan and only after filling up the details like amount, date, had given the Ex. A1 Cheque and further held that as per written statement and exhibited through the evidence of DW1 to DW3, Ex.A1 Cheque dated 15.8.1998 was not given to the Respondent/Plaintiff by the Appellant/Defendant. Further, it decreed the suit in directing the Appellant/Defendant to pay the suit sum of Rs.3,13,500 together with future interest to the Respondent/Plaintiff together with costs.
3. Before the trial Court, in the main Suit, on behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff, witness PW1 (Plaintiff) was examined and Exs. A.1 to A.5 were marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant, witnesses DW1 to DW4 were
1. M.S. Narayana Menon Allas Mani v. State of Kerala and Anr.
2. Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab and another
4. Narender Singh & Anr. V. State of M.P.
5. Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
6. Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBl through its Director (2007) 1 SCC 70. (Para 17)
9. T.G Balaguru v. Ramachandran Pillai
14. Mohamed Ali v. Abdul Sinab
17. K.P.O. Moideenkutty Hajee v. Pappu Manjooran and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.