Case Summary
The plaintiff, Sherin Syrus, is suing the defendants, Riya Edison and Jose Samuel, for the repayment of ₹9,00,000/-. The amount was accepted by the defendants for a sale agreement that was never executed.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to prove his case and the defendants' version was found to be more credible.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to establish a consistent case and did not prove the execution of the promissory note.
The plaintiff failed to establish a consistent case and did not prove the execution of the promissory note.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to establish a consistent case and did not prove the execution of the promissory note.
The plaintiff failed to establish a consistent case and did not prove the execution of the promissory note.
Supporting Evidence
The court found that the plaintiff did not prove that the first defendant was acting as the power of attorney holder of the second defendant.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sherin Syrus
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Riya Edison
- Party Age
- 30
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jose Samuel
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
02-06-2015 - Promissory Note, Copy of Advocate Notice, Postal receipt, Acknowledgment Card, 02-06-2015 - Special Power of Attorney, 01-07-2014 - Sale Agreement
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. S. Krishnakumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. D. Roy
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought to recover ₹9,00,000/- from the defendants.
Evidence:
Considering the above discussions, this court is having no hesitation to conclude that plaintiff has failed to prove the case.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Promissory Note
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Executed by the first defendant agreeing to repay ₹9,00,000/- with interest.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Advocate Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice demanding repayment of ₹9,00,000/-.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of sending the advocate notice.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Acknowledgment card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of receipt of the advocate notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Special Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Granted authority to the first defendant to act on behalf of the second defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Sale Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement regarding the sale of paddy field owned by the second defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Details related to the authority structure regarding the second defendant.
Reference:
Ext.X1
Document Type:
Stamp Issuing Details
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Proof of issuance of the stamp paper related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.X2
Document Type:
Vendors Nalvazhy
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Supporting documentation regarding vendor details.
Reference:
Ext.X3
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Recovery of Money
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between Sherin Syrus vs Riya Edison et al regarding the recovery of ₹9,00,000/-
Case Code Year
Case between Sherin Syrus vs Riya Edison et al regarding the recovery of ₹9,00,000/-