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

2015 Supreme(Mad) 641

R.MAHADEVAN
Andal – Appellant
Versus
Anthonysamy – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:G. Surya Narayanan, Advocate
For the Respondent:C. Arunkumar, Advocate

JUDGMENT:-

Being aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the courts below in dismissing the suit filed by her, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that on 20.08.2001 morning the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from her agreeing to repay the same with interest at Rs.1/- per Rs.100/- and again on the same day ie., 20.08.2001 evening he borrowed another sum of Rs.20,000/-. The defendant settled the amount borrowed by him in the morning hours but did not settle the amount borrowed in the evening hours of 20.08.2001. Hence, this suit for recovery of money.

3. The defendant has filed the Written Statement and denied the execution of the promissory note dated 20.08.2001 and borrowal from the plaintiff. According to him, he borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from one Kaliaperumal, brother of the plaintiff, on 15.10.2000 and executed a blank stamped promissory note and due to political enmity, the plaintiff misused the above blank stamped promissory note and filed this vexatious suit to wreck vengence. It is further stated that the plaintiff has to prove that the amount borrowed by the defendant under the promissory n










































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