Case Summary
The plaintiff, Suresh.S.A, alleges that the defendants, including Seethalekshmi.M, Prasanth.S. Nair, and Saranya, defrauded him regarding a promised visa to Australia for which he paid a sum of money. The defendants deny the allegations and claim the suit is malicious.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed as the court found the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims of fraud and misrepresentation.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prove the allegations against the defendants.
The plaintiff failed to prove the allegations against the defendants.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to prove the allegations against the defendants.
The plaintiff failed to prove the allegations against the defendants.
Supporting Evidence
The plaint and evidence presented were inadequate to substantiate the claims made by the plaintiff.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result: The suit is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Suresh.S.A
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Seethalekshmi.M
- Party Age
- 37
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Saranya
- Party Age
- 28
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Prasanth.S. Nair
- Party Age
- 35
Plaintiffs Documents
Remittance Slip dated 20/12/2018, Savings Bank Account Pass Book.
Defendants Documents
Vetasses final assessment report with Certificate Under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Original Receipt dated 27/12/2018.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.M.R.Anandakuttan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.A.Manoharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.V.Manoj Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Vinod.S.Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Arun Babu.B
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Plaintiff sought recovery of 7,50,000/- from the defendants.
Evidence:
In light of the discussions in the foregoing issues, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Remittance Slip
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of payment made by the plaintiff to the first defendant for visa processing.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Remittance Slip
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Additional evidence of payment related to the first defendant for visa processing.
Reference:
Ext.A1(a)
Document Type:
Savings Bank Account (Pass Book)
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document evidencing the joint account related to the visa processing.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Vetasses final assessment report with Certificate Under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Assessment report relevant to the visa application process.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Original Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Receipt for payment made towards visa processing assistance.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Screenshot of application with a certificate Under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Screenshot evidencing the visa application submitted on behalf of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Fraudulent representations
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2019