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

2004 Supreme(Mad) 570

A.R.RAMALINGAM
Devaraju Padayachi – Appellant
Versus
Sivasankara Padayachi – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. R. Subramanian, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.K. Rakhunathan, Advocate
for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. The civil revision petition has been filed by one Devaraju Padayachi being the decree holder in O.S.No. 791 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore against the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore in E.A.No. 768 of 1999 in E.P.No. 8 of 1998 in O.S.No. 791 of 1995.

2. Theimpugned order is to the effect that the entire decree debt has been discharged by payment of Rs.15,000 by the judgment debtor viz., Sivasankara Padayachi and consequent issue of receipt dated 26. 1999 by the decree holder.

3. Aggrieved against such order, the decree holder filed this revision petition on the ground that there was no necessity for out of Court settlement and there was no payment of Rs.15,000 by the judgment debtor to the decree holder on 26. 1999 and there was no such receipt issued by the decree holder in favour of the judgment debtor and the said receipt for Rs.15,000 dated 26. 1999 itself should be a forged one at the instance of the judgment debtor with the help of the scribe and others and that if really there was a settlement, there was no necessity for the counsel for the judgment debtor to make a representation on 30.6.1999 that t





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