Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S No. 404/2020

Case between Joseph et al vs Job et al regarding money recovery

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2024-12-21
Duration
approximately-6 years
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Joseph and Selina Shine are the plaintiffs seeking to recover Rs. 5,00,000 from the defendants Job and Sebastian, alleging failure to comply with an agreement for the sale of property rights. The defendants deny the allegations and assert that no agreement was made.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the advance payment made to the defendants. The evidence showed discrepancies regarding the alleged agreements.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the advance payment made to the defendants. The evidence showed discrepancies regarding the alleged agreements.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs could not establish that any money was actually advanced as an advance sale consideration for the alleged agreement.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs could not establish that any money was actually advanced as an advance sale consideration for the alleged agreement.
Supporting Evidence
From the aforesaid discussions, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was advanced to both the defendants.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Joseph
Party Age
50
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Selina Shine
Party Age
47
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Job
Party Age
67
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sebastian
Party Age
41
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Agreement dated 06.12.2018, Lawyer notice dated 20.02.2020, Reply notice
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Joji K Antony
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Jiji K Antony
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
K.S.Jijo
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought to recover an amount of ₹5,00,000/- from the defendants.
Evidence:
From the aforesaid discussions, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that a total sum of ₹5,00,000/- was advanced to both the defendants.
Relief Type: Interest
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Plaintiffs claimed interest on the amount sought to be recovered.
Evidence:
In light of findings in issue Nos. 1 and 2, issue No. 3 is also found against the plaintiffs since plaintiff is not found entitled to any amount.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Agreement for sale
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is stated to be the agreement for sale executed between the defendants and the first plaintiff for the sale of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was sent by the first plaintiff to the defendants requesting repayment of the advance sale consideration.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is the reply notice issued by the defendants denying the statements made in Ext.A2.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Bank Account statement
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This statement shows the transactions related to the cheques issued and encashed.
Reference:
Ext.X1
Document Type: Cheque
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This cheque was mentioned as advance sale consideration related to the transaction.
Reference:
Ext.X3
Document Type: Cheque
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This cheque was mentioned as part of the advance sale consideration related to the transaction.
Reference:
Ext.X4

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Joseph et al vs Job et al regarding money recovery
Case Code Year
Case between Joseph et al vs Job et al regarding money recovery

Case Flags

Cheque-Related Case
Nature of Cheque Case
Cheque Dishonour

Quick Facts

Location
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Thu, 12/06/2018 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sun, 12/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Tue, 12/31/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between T.O Abraham et al vs T.O Aleyas et al regarding settlement of the suit
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Prakash Pai, et al vs Saju, et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Nithya vs Babu et al regarding Dismissal of Listed Case
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Kunju Bava vs C. A Abdulla regarding specific performance of agreement and consequential reliefs
The Court of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Ammini M.N et al vs Sindhu et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won