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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3059

R. MAHADEVAN, MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Vikram Jesudasen & Advocate – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants :George Cheriyan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R6, R. Parthasarathy, Senior Advocate.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal is filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the learned Judge in C.S.No.375 of 2005.)

Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal revolves around the scope and ambit of Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).

For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties in terms of their ranking in the suit in CS.No.375 of 2005.

2. Brief Facts:

a) The respondents 1 to 6 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit and they laid the same for specific performance based on an oral agreement for sale of schedule mentioned property owned by the defendants 1 to 5. The appellants herein are the 1st and 3rd defendants in the suit. The Chartered Accountant and the daughter of the 4th defendant were arrayed as the 6th and 7th defendants in the suit and are the 10th and 11th respondents herein.

b) The claim to the schedule mentioned property was made on the basis of an oral agreement. To prove/establish the said oral agreement, the plaintiffs /

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