The High Court dismissed a second appeal wherein the appellant challenged the dismissal of a suit for recovery of liquidated damages. The Court held the appellant failed to prove the defendant caused damage or that the claimed loss was supported by evidence.
The second appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on : 18.01.2017 Judgment pronounced on : 24.01.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Second Appeal No.879 of 1999
Rameeza Beevi ... Appellant/Plaintiff Vs. Abdul Razack by his Power Agent & Wife Subaida Beevi ... Respondent/Defendant PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 02.03.1999 in A.S.No.148 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.02.1998 in O.S.No.93 of 1997 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Tiruvarur. For Appellant : Mr. A.Muthukumar For Respondent : No Appearance JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The suit for recovery of liquidated damages of Rs.24,360/- was dismissed by the Trial Court and the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the Second Appeal is preferred against the concurrent findings of the courts below.
“When damages to the plaintiff's wall is established, would the plaintiff be within his legal rights to file a suit only for damages or should be necessarily claim the relief for mandatory injunction against the defendant to reconstruct the wall and only in the event of his failure to do so claim damages?”
by any acceptable documentary evidence.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rm
To
1. The Principal District Judge,
Nagapattinam.
2. The District Munsif,
Tiruvarur.
RJ(CO)
RS(27/02/2017)
Judgment made in
Second Appeal No.879 of 1999
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff was legally required to claim mandatory injunction for reconstruction before claiming damages when damage to the wall was established?
Whether the plaintiff succeeded in proving that the defendant caused damage to his roof and incurred a loss of Rs. 24,360/-?
Rameeza Beevi
Abdul Razack
DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
