T. BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. M. KANTHASAMY
LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-137
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on
February 07,2013
T. Balasubramanian
Appellant
VERSUS
M. Kanthasamy
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CHUNILAL V. MEHTA AND SONS LTD. V.Ï 1/2CENTURY SPG. AND MGF. CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]ORIENTAL INVESTMENT CO LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
PRATIVA DEVI VS. T V KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
SATYA GUPTA ALIAS MADHU GUPTA VS. BRUESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
RAGAVENDRA KUMAR VS. FIRM PREM MACHINARY AND CO [REFERRED TO]
MOLAR MAL DEAD VS. KAY IRON WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JAI SINGH VS. SHAKUNTALA [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIR SINGH VS. HARNAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. S N GOYAL [REFERRED TO]
BHARATHA MATHA VS. R VIJAYA RENGANATHAN [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. YUSUF ALI [REFERRED TO]
KAPIL COREPACKS PVT LTD VS. HARBANS LAL [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. IBRAHIM UDDIN [REFERRED TO]
SETH SUWALAL CHHOGALAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
BIBHABATI DEVI VS. RAMENDRA NARAYAN ROY [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This second appeal is focussed by the defendant, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 21.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Poonamallee in A.S.No.33 of 2009 in partly modifying the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in O.S.No.62 of 2006.
(2.)The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
(3.)A summation and summarisation of the germane facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:
a. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:
- to pass a judgment and decree against the defendant
- directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,88,000/- [Rupees one lakh and eighty eight thousand only] with interest at 18% per annum on the principal of Rs.1,33,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realisation
- and for cost of the suit
(extracted as such)
based on the promissory note and also on the ground that hand loan was given by the plaintiff to the defendant.
b. The defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement.
c. Whereupon issues were framed by the trial court.
d. Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 along with PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.B1.
e. Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit.
f. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, first appeal was filed by the defendant and the first appellate court modified the decree passed by the trial court by passing decree based on Ex.A1 the promissory note and dismissed the suit based on hand loan.
g. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, this second appeal has been focussed by the defendant on various grounds suggesting the following substantial questions of law.
1. Whether the courts below are wrongly considered the Ex.B1 admitted signature of the plaintiff?
2. Whether the courts below are wrongly considered the Ex.A2 and A6, no reply from the defendant?
3. Whether the courts below have wrongly admitted xerox copies of the documents which is marked as Exs.A4 and Ex.A5 are correct? (extracted as such)
(2.)The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
(3.)A summation and summarisation of the germane facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:
a. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:
- to pass a judgment and decree against the defendant
- directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,88,000/- [Rupees one lakh and eighty eight thousand only] with interest at 18% per annum on the principal of Rs.1,33,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realisation
- and for cost of the suit
(extracted as such)
based on the promissory note and also on the ground that hand loan was given by the plaintiff to the defendant.
b. The defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement.
c. Whereupon issues were framed by the trial court.
d. Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 along with PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.B1.
e. Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit.
f. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, first appeal was filed by the defendant and the first appellate court modified the decree passed by the trial court by passing decree based on Ex.A1 the promissory note and dismissed the suit based on hand loan.
g. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, this second appeal has been focussed by the defendant on various grounds suggesting the following substantial questions of law.
1. Whether the courts below are wrongly considered the Ex.B1 admitted signature of the plaintiff?
2. Whether the courts below are wrongly considered the Ex.A2 and A6, no reply from the defendant?
3. Whether the courts below have wrongly admitted xerox copies of the documents which is marked as Exs.A4 and Ex.A5 are correct? (extracted as such)
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.