Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

E.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. KANARAN NAIR versus KANNAMVELI KUNHIRAMAN, S/O. KANARAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


E.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. KANARAN NAIR v. KANNAMVELI KUNHIRAMAN, S/O. KANARAN - CRP No. 733 of 2003(B) [2007] RD-KL 9007 (30 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 733 of 2003(B)

1. E.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. KANARAN NAIR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KANNAMVELI KUNHIRAMAN, S/O. KANARAN,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

For Respondent :SRI.B.KRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :30/05/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... C.R.P.No.733 OF 2003 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 30TH MAY, 2007

ORDER

The defendant in a suit for money is aggrieved by the construction of the document which was put in evidence by the plaintiff as an agreement. According to the petitioner, the document is a bond and should have been stamped accordingly. The learned Munsiff- Magistrate on an appreciation of the document referred to the statutory definition of the term "bond", relied on the judgment of this Court in Little Flower Kuries and Enterprises Ltd. v. Victory (1979 KLT 820) and also in Mathai Mathew v. Thampi (1989 (1) KLT 138) and held that the document is an agreement and overruled the contention raised by the petitioner that the document is a bond.

2. Heard Sri.C.P.Mohammed Nias, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. A copy of the document in question was made available for my perusal. The question is whether the document is executed in recognition of a pre-existing liability or whether a new liability is created by virtue of the document. I must say that two interpretations are possible. Since two interpretations are possible, I think the learned Munsiff-Magistrate was justified in leaning in favour of the C.R.P.N0.733/2003

plaintiff, having regard to the principles laid down by K.T.Thomas, J. in

Mathai Mathew v. Thampi (1989 (1) KLT 138) in which decision the learned Judge had followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Empress Mills v. Municipal Committee (AIR 1958 SC 341). The result of the above discussion is that the C.R.P. fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl C.R.P.N0.733/2003

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.

............................................................. C.R.P.NO.2396 OF 2001

ORDER

30TH MAY, 2007. .............................................................


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.