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

2012 Supreme(Mad) 357

M.VENUGOPAL
Jayaram Sait – Appellant
Versus
Thillai Rani – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:P. Mathivanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Gururaj, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.08.1997 in A.S.No.95 of 1996 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 18.09.1996 in O.S.No.410 of 1992 passed by the Learned Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore.

2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, while placing the Judgment in Appeal A.S.No.95 of 1996 on 19.08.1997, in paragraph 14, has, inter alia, observed that in regard to the first claim of Rs.10,000/- [being the balance of advance amount paid by the Respondent/Plaintiff to the Appellant/Defendant on 28.08.1989 on which it is seen that Ex.A.1 that a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been paid to the Defendants] that there is no acknowledgement in Ex.A.3 [Appellant/Defendant's reply lawyer notice addressed to the Respondent/Plaintiff's lawyer] excepting the mention of two admitted facts namely (1) that Rs.10,000/-was paid to the Defendant on 28.8.1989 and the other (2) that Defendant repaid Rs.10,000/-on 13.9.1989. We cannot merely infer that the balance amount would only be due and held that what was contained in Ex.A.










































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