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
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs could not establish that any money was actually advanced as an advance sale consideration for the alleged agreement.
The plaintiffs could not establish that any money was actually advanced as an advance sale consideration for the alleged agreement.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Joseph (50 years years)
Koluthuvallil, Chandiroor muriyil, Aroor village
Selina Shine (47 years years)
Koluthuvallil, Chandiroor muriyil, Aroor village
Defendants
Job (67 years years)
Thamarappillil Kannikattu veedu near Lakeshore Hospital, Nettoor Desom, Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk
Sebastian (41 years years)
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