Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.58 seconds)
Vellaisamy vs P.Subramanian on 28 August, 2019 cites

V.P.Murugesan vs P.Shiek Mideen on 5 November, 2015

18. As abovenoted, the trial Court has clearly determined that Ex.A1 sale agreement had been secured/created based on the signature obtained from the defendant in the blank stamp papers at the time of lending the loan amount. In such view of the matter, when according to the trial Court, there has been no consensus ad idem between the parties concerned for entering into the sale agreement projected in the matter, in such view, as rightly put forth by the defendant's counsel, the trial Court has committed a manifest error in granting the relief of the refund of the advance amount with interest in favour of the plaintiff. The abovesaid determination of the trial Court is found to be not in accordance with the principles of law 13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No. 125 of 2016 and C.M.P. No.2628 of 2016 outlined in the decisions reported in CDJ 2015 MHC 8018 (V.P.Murugesan Vs. P.Sheik Mideen) and CDJ 2016 MHC 6522 (T.P.Kandasamy & Others Vs. Vemba Gounder & Others).
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

T.P.Kandasamy vs Vemba Gounder on 7 December, 2016

18. As abovenoted, the trial Court has clearly determined that Ex.A1 sale agreement had been secured/created based on the signature obtained from the defendant in the blank stamp papers at the time of lending the loan amount. In such view of the matter, when according to the trial Court, there has been no consensus ad idem between the parties concerned for entering into the sale agreement projected in the matter, in such view, as rightly put forth by the defendant's counsel, the trial Court has committed a manifest error in granting the relief of the refund of the advance amount with interest in favour of the plaintiff. The abovesaid determination of the trial Court is found to be not in accordance with the principles of law 13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No. 125 of 2016 and C.M.P. No.2628 of 2016 outlined in the decisions reported in CDJ 2015 MHC 8018 (V.P.Murugesan Vs. P.Sheik Mideen) and CDJ 2016 MHC 6522 (T.P.Kandasamy & Others Vs. Vemba Gounder & Others).
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - T Ravindran - Full Document

Raju And Parvathi vs Muthuammal And Ors. on 4 July, 2003

20. The first appellate Court, without going into the various reasons given by the trial Court for not believing the sale agreement projected by the plaintiff, on the mere factor that as the defendant, by way of the reply notice Ex.A5, had not put forth any loan transaction between him and the plaintiff directly and on that footing, proceeded to hold that the sale agreement had been particularly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff as put forth by the plaintiff. The abovesaid reasonings of the first appellate Court are patently unacceptable in the eyes of law. When the trial Court has given various reasonings for disbelieving the sale agreement projected by the plaintiff and finally came to the conclusion that the 14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A. No. 125 of 2016 and C.M.P. No.2628 of 2016 sale agreement had been taken only as a security for the loan transaction, in such view of the matter, the first appellate Court, if it desires to dislodge the abovesaid determination of the trial Court, should explain as to on what reasonings it differed from the abovesaid determination of the trial Court and on the other hand, when the first appellate Court has not even endeavoured to consider the reasonings adduced by the trial Court in any manner, particularly, the first appellate Court being the final Court of fact, in such view of the matter, it is found that if the first appellate Court proceeded to reverse the finding of fact, it must have gone into close quarters with the reasonings assigned by the trial Court and then assign its own reasonings for arriving at a different finding. The abovesaid position of law could be gathered from the decisions reported in CDJ 2001 MHC 1079 (B.Parvathy Vs.Ramakrishna Mission represented by duly authorised power agent Swami Amirthananatha and others) and CDJ 2003 MHC 1203 (Raju & another Vs. Muthuammal & others).
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1