Madras High Court
Nagammal vs Lakshmanan on 8 September, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.2194 of 2017
Nagammal ....Petitioner
Vs
1.Lakshmanan
2.Palanichamy
3.Anbu Selvi ...Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of
Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
A.S.No.88 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul
District, Dindigul dated 27.09.2001 by reversing the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.675 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District
Munsif, Dindigul dated 12.11.1999.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Kadarkarai
R1 and R2 :Dismissed
For R3 : No Appearance
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
The first plaintiff in O.S.No.675 of 1998 on the file of the II
Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul, is the Revision Petitioner
herein.
2.The Revision Petitioner along with one Anbuselvi, had filed
O.S.No.675 of 1998 for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the
defendants. After contest, the trial Court had decreed the suit, as prayed
for, on 12.11.1999. The defendants filed A.S.No.88 of 2000 before the
Principal District Court, Dindigul. The first appellate Court allowed the
appeal on 27.09.2001. Since the value of the suit is less than Rs.25,000/-,
the first plaintiff has filed the present Revision Petition under Section 115
of Code of Civil Procedure.
3.According to the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the
first appellate Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence placed by the plaintiffs and has not assigned any valid reasons
for rejecting the submission made on the side of the plaintiffs. He further
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contended that the first appellate Court ought not to have reversed the well
considered judgment and decree of the trial Court.
4.The respondents in the Revision Petition could not be served.
5.The plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit are the sisters.
According to the plaint allegations, the defendants have sold away 43
sheeps belonging to the plaintiffs and they have appropriated a sum of
Rs.20,000/-. However, the defendants have disputed the said contentions
and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Trial Court relying upon the oral
evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 had proceeded to decreed the suit.
6.The first appellate Court, after considering the oral evidence,
arrived at a finding that the plaintiffs did not have any sufficient nucleus to
purchase 43 sheeps. The first appellate Court also relied upon the oral
evidence of PW-3, Andivel Nayakkar, who deposed that already partition
has been effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The first
appellate Court also relied upon the oral evidence of PW-2 that the sale
proceeds of the sheeps have been utilised for the marriage expenses of the
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plaintiffs. Based upon the said oral evidence, the first appellate Court was
pleased to dismiss the suit.
7.A perusal of the judgment of the first appellate Court would
clearly indicate that the first appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the
oral evidence let in on the side of the plaintiffs and the defendants and the
said Court had arrived at a finding that the plaintiffs have not established
their case of purchase of 43 sheeps out of their own funds.
8.This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the
judgment and decree of the first appellate Court. The Revision Petition
stands dismissed. No costs.
08.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
cmr
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The II Additional District Munsif, Dindigul.
3.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
cmr
C.R.P.(MD).No.2194 of 2017
08.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
