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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 1188

K.NATARAJAN
Chinnasamy – Appellant
Versus
Perumal – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. P. Sreenivasalu, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. V. Raghavachari, Advocate
for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned subordinate judge, Tindivanam passed in A.S. No.52 of 1986, dated 3. 1987, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Gingee, dated 112. 1985. The plaintiff is the appellant. The parties will hereinafter be referred as per their rank in the trial court for the sake of convenience. The circumstances which has given rise to this second appeal may be stated briefly as follows:- The plaintiff is the correspondent of St. Annammal School, Cuddalore. He instituted the suit in O.S. No.204 of 1984 for recovery of money with interest, on the allegation that on 17. 1981, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000 in cash. agreeing to pay interest at 12% per annum and executed a promissory note, Ex.A.1. In spite of several demands, the defendant did not pay any amount. As the defendant is an agriculturist, interest is claimed at 9% per annum. It is also alleged, the defendant is owning more than five acres of wet land and, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Acts 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982. The defendant resisted the suit stating he applied for a teachers job












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