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

2005 Supreme(Mad) 842

R.BANUMATHI
Pyarijan – Appellant
Versus
Puttappa & Another – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For The Petitioner:V.Nicholas, Advocate. For The Respondents:R1, A.Sirajudeen, Advocate.

Judgment :-

This revision is directed against the Judgment and Decree of the learned District Munsif, Hosur, dated 20.12.1999 made in I.A.No.707/1999 in O.S.No.121/1993, allowing the petition filed under Or.13, R.9 and Section 151 CPC and holding that the document is inadmissible in evidence. The Plaintiff is the revision Petitioner.

2. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- repayable in three years. In lieu of interest, the Defendants are said to have hypothecated the mulberry crops in S.No.103 – 50 cents. To that effect, the Defendants 1 and 2 have executed an agreement on 8.1.1992, wherein they have acknowledged the receipt of the amount. The Defendants have not repaid the amount. Hence the Plaintiff issued legal notice to the Defendants calling upon them to allow her to draw water from the well to do mulberry crop plantation or pay back the amount. The Defendants though received the notice did not reply the notice nor paid the amount and also not complied with the demand of the notice. Hence the suit has been filed directing the Defendants to pay Rs.15,000/-.

3. Denying the averments in the Plaint, Defendants have filed Written Statement i





















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