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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3198

S. SOUNTHAR
Vijayalakshmi @ Vennila – Appellant
Versus
P. Kandaswamy – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant :V. Srimathi, Advocate. For the Respondent:N. Manokaran, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgement in A.S.No.10 of 2015 and decree dated 29.07.2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal confirming the judgement and decree dated 07.10.2013 made in O.S.No.317 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Judge of Trichencode.)

1. The unsuccessful defendant in a suit for recovery of money based on promissory note is the appellant. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the findings of the Trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court, the appellant is before this Court.

2. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant herein borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent for family expenses on 02.01.2005 and executed a suit promissory note agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Inspite of several demands by the respondent, appellant failed to repay the same and hence, the suit was laid for recovery of money based on the said promissory note.

3. The appellant/defendant filed written statement den

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