The High Court held that a document styled as Vagdathapathram creating repayment liability is a bond, not an agreement. The impugned order was set aside to proceed with the suit accordingly.
Impugned order dated 11.1.2012 set aside; suit directed to proceed treating the document as a bond.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/20TH ASWINA 1934
OP(C).No. 334 of 2012 (O)
OS.53/2008 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY
PETITIONER(S):
P.UMMUKULSU,
W/O.ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, MANNIL KADAVAN VEEDU PEECHAMKODE, PERUNNANNUR AMSOM, KARINGARI DESOM MANATHAVADY TALUK, KELLUR POST.
BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S):
P.P.HAMSA THANGAL
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN KUNJU, AGRICULTURIST PUTHENPURAYIL, RESIDING AT FATHIMA MANZIL MANGATTIDAM AMSOM, 117 VATTIPRAM DESOM - 673 121
RR BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RR BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX IN O.P.(C) NO.334 OF 2012
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.53/08 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY.
EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT.
EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.7708 DATED 5.10.2005.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE.
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
O.P.(C) No. 334 of 2012
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The short question is whether Ext.P3 document is an agreement or a bond. The document is dated 5.10.2005 and is styled as a 'Vagdathapathram'. A reading of the document reveals that liability is created for the first time thereunder. The executant undertakes to repay the sum of Rs.3 lakhs with interest within 9 months from the date of execution. I have no doubt that the document is a 'bond' and not an 'agreement'. A reference in this connection to Radha v. Sankaranarayanan (2007 (1) KLT 20) and State of Kerala v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. (1994 (1) KLT 802) are apposite.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the document styled as Vagdathapathram dated 5.10.2005 constitutes an agreement or a bond.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Radha v. SankaranarayananReferred¶28
Radha v. Sankaranarayanan (2007 (1) KLT 20)
State of Kerala v. McDowell & Co. Ltd.Referred¶28
State of Kerala v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. (1994 (1) KLT 982)
P. Ummukulsu
P.P.Hamsa Thangal
V. Chithambaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V. Chithambaresh
Parties & counsel
