Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
MANAKKATT MOHAMMED NIYAS S/O MARAKKAR UMMER – Appellant
Versus
METHUKAYIL VEETTIL UMMER S/O MOHAMMEDALI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
1. This Regular First Appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 162/2012 on the files of the Sub Court, Tirur, challenging decree and judgment, dated 15.7.2021 therein. Respondents herein are defendants 1 and 2 in the above suit.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/1st defendant.
3. The parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendants’ for brevity and convenience hereafter.
4. Plaintiff filed the suit to realise Rs. 21 Lakh from the defendants. The specific case of the plaintiff is that, on 10.9.2009, the defendants requested the plaintiff to lend 1,65,000/- Saudi Riyal for the purpose of running ZamZam Super Market in Gizan, Saudi Arabia. Pursuant to the said demand, after execution of an agreement on 1.11.2009, entered into between the plaintiff and defendants, plaintiff paid 70,000/- Saudi Riyal to the defendants. That apart, 95,000/- Saudi Riyal, as per the agreement also was given by two installments through the bank account of the 2nd defendant on 10.12.2009 and 10.12.2010. But, the amount was not repaid.
5. Defendants entered appearance an
A plaintiff must provide credible evidence to substantiate claims in a loan agreement; mere assertions without corroboration or examination of witnesses are insufficient for a successful suit.
In a suit based on a dishonored cheque, the plaintiff must prove the underlying transaction, after which presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act apply, and the defendant can rebut these wit....
The plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the sale agreement, and the amendment to include a claim for the return of the advance amount was not permissible as it would change the nature of the s....
The burden of proof lies on the party seeking relief, and the execution of the agreement must be proven with reliable evidence.
The limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance starts from the date of refusal of performance, not from the execution date of the agreement.
The plaintiff must prove the genuineness of agreements and readiness to perform for specific performance; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.
Suit for recovery of amount - Suit to include whole claim - Since defendant in case on hand failed to raise plea of bar of suit under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C before the trial court, it is a matter of l....
The admissibility of signature in a document and the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were central to the judgment.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
