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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1942

R. HEMALATHA
Kuppusamy – Appellant
Versus
Manoharan – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:B. Sivagami, for M/s. R. Balasubramanian, Advocates. For the Respondent:Gokul, for M/s. P.V. Law Associates, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 09.03.2007 passed in A.S. No.18 of 2005, on the file of the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, upholding the decree and judgment dated 02.11.2004 passed in O.S. No.219 of 2003, on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.)

1. The unsuccessful defendant before both the courts below has filed the present second appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No.219 of 2003, on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,395/- together with interest and thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization from the appellant/defendant due under a promissory note dated 18.03.2000 (Ex.A1) executed by the appellant/defendant.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and in appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.

4. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is as follows:

The defendant executed a promissory note (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