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

1957 Supreme(Ori) 93

RAO
HARIKRISHAN AGARWALLA – Appellant
Versus
BAIJNATH MAHAJAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.M. Patnaik and A.K. Roy, for the Appellant; G.G. Das, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT :

Rao, J. - Plaintiff files this appeal against the reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Balangir dismissing the Plaintiff's suit.

2. The Plaintiff. filed the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 2000/- paid by him to the Defendant. According to the plaint allegations the Plaintiff paid this amount on 21-4-1952 on the Defendant agreeing to mortgage his building at Titlagarh. The terms of the mortgage deed (Ext. 1) are that it was agreed between the parties that the Defendant should repay the sum of Rs. 2000/- In quarterly instalments of Rs. 800/- each and in default of payment of anyone instalment the entire money shall become due and the Plaintiff will be entitled to sue for recovery of the same; and that the Defendant should continue to be in possession of the house mortgaged agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 20/- per month. The Defendant never paid any amount towards rent also. The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendant having failed to pay anything, the suit Is filed to recover the sum of Rs. 2000/-.

3. The Defendant, though he admitted the signature on Ext. 1, denied execution and receipt of consideration. He also contended that the Plaintiff being a money-lender w













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