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

2012 Supreme(Mad) 337

M.VENUGOPAL
K. K. Annamalai – Appellant
Versus
Rakkiannan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:P. Manoharan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:A. Sundaravadhanam, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. The Appellant/Defendant has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.09.1998 in A.S.No.19 of 1998 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam in confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 24.12.1997 in O.S.No.29 of 1997 passed by the Learned District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.

2. The First Appellate Court, the Learned Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam, while delivering the Judgment in A.S.No.19 of 1998, on 16.09.1998, has among other things observed that "though there are wide contradictions in regard to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it cannot be construed as they change the character of the suit" and also opined that Ex.A1-Pronote dated 09.02.1994 has been proved based on the oral and documentary evidence and accordingly dismissed the appeal with costs. Earlier in the main suit, the trial Court has framed one to three issues for determination. On behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff, witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.A1 and A2 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant, D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B1 and B2 have been marked.

3. The trial Court, after scrutinising the oral and documentary evide





































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