Case Note & Summary
The appellant, A. Mohammed Thariq, filed a First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Perambalur. The suit was for recovery of money based on two agreements dated 22.10.2010 and 15.12.2010. According to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to sell his property and received a total advance of Rs.56,45,000/- (Rs.25,00,000/- on 22.10.2010, Rs.6,45,000/- on 16.05.2011, and Rs.25,00,000/- on 15.12.2010). The plaintiff claimed that he later discovered the defendant was not the owner of the property and that the defendant evaded executing the sale, hence the suit for recovery. The defendant denied executing any such agreements and contended that he was in the real estate business with the plaintiff, who obtained his signature on blank papers and misused them. He also denied receiving any amount. The Trial Court framed two issues: whether the plaintiff was entitled to the suit amount with interest, and to what relief. After examining P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marking Exs.A1 to A4 on the plaintiff's side, and D.W.1 on the defendant's side with no documents, the Trial Court found that the plaintiff had not established the agreements marked as Exs.A1 and A2, and disbelieved Ex.A4 (a letter). The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the agreements or the payment of the advance amount. The High Court, on appeal, reappreciated the evidence and found no perversity in the Trial Court's findings. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Trial Court's judgment and decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal - First Appeal under Section 96 CPC - Dismissal of Suit - The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on two sale agreements. The defendant denied execution and receipt of any amount. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreements. The High Court, on reappreciation of evidence, found no perversity in the findings and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of money based on alleged sale agreements when the execution of those agreements is disputed and not proved.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 15.12.2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2013.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Execution of document
- Appreciation of evidence
- Section 96 CPC
- Order 41 Rule 1 CPC
