SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Ker) 373

THOMAS
AUGUSTI – Appellant
Versus
JOSEPH – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. A suit for money on the basis of an oral loan has been dismissed by the court below. This revision is against the said decree dismissing the suit. The learned Munsiff has also ordered the plaintiff to pay compensatory costs under S.35A of the Civil Procedure Code to the defendant.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant are cousins. The plaintiff's case is that on 25-2-1979, the defendant had received a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from the plaintiff and had undertaken to repay the money immediately and despite several demands the same had not been repaid.

3. The defendant in his written statement had denied the alleged transaction. The further averments of the defendant show that he had entered into an agreement with another person for the sale of his properties on 3-6-1978 and thereafter the sale deed had been executed and registered and he had left the locality for good. According to him, he had no need to take a loan from the plaintiff. In the written statement, he has said that the cause of action and the statement regarding court fee set out in the plaint are false. Then he claims compensatory costs.

4. The learned Munsiff, after referring to the testimonies of the plaintiff and












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top