"ARGYRIS KYRIACOU" ν. ESTATE OF DECEASED PETROS CHRISTODOULOU (V18) 1 CLR 59 ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ CyLaw | Αναφορικά μ'εμάς | " target="_top">Επικοινωνία | Όροι χρήσης Έρευνα - Κατάλογος Αποφάσεων - Εμφάνιση Αναφορών (Noteup on) - Αρχείο σε μορφή PDF - Αφαίρεση Υπογραμμίσεων (V18) 1 CLR 59 1946 January 2 [JACKSON, C.J., AND GRIFFITH WILLIAMS, J.] ARGYRIS KYRIACOU, Appellant, v. ESTATE OF DECEASED PETROS CHRISTODOULOU, Respondents. (Civil Appeal No. 3776.) Action on bond-Evidence in support of claim-Judgment based on other evidence-Right to bring fresh action. The respondent's claim was for a sum of money due on a bond. The trial Court, while apparently ignoring altogether the bond upon which the respondent's case was based, concluded from other evidence that the debt which the appellant admitted to have once existed had not been paid off, and gave judgment in respondent's favour. Held: The bond was the main evidence upon which the claim was based and if the trial Court could not accept it it should have dismissed the claim. It makes no difference whether or not the bond was a bond in customary form within the meaning of the Contract Law,
- Such a decision would not have affected the respondent's right to bring an action for a debt based on other evidence. Judgment of the District Court of Paphos reversed. Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Paphos (Action No. 168/44) given in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs). J. Clerides for the appellant. S. Stavrinakis for the respondents. The facts are fully set out in the judgment of the Court which was delivered by: JACKSON, C.J.: The appellant in this case was one of two defendants in an action brought in the District Court of Paphos for a sum of money due on a bond. The appellant was sued as the principal debtor and the second defendant as the guarantor. The bond upon which the plaintiffs in the action based their claim was produced by them in the District Court and evidence was given to prove that both defendants had signed it. That evidence and the bond itself was the principal evidence upon which the claim was based. The District Court dismissed the claim against the second defendant who was alleged to have signed the bond as guarantor. This defendant denied that he had signed it and the District Court did not accept the evidence that he did. The appellant's case was that the bond was a forgery and that though he had at one time owed to the plaintiffs' predecessor in title a sum equal to the sum mentioned in the disputed bond, that debt had been secured by another bond, of apparently the same date, and had been paid off. The District Court, as we have said, refused to accept the bond produced in the action as against the second defendant and declined to express any opinion on the genuineness of the bond as against the first defendant who is the appellant in this case. But the Court, while apparently ignoring altogether the bond upon which the plaintiffs' case was based, concluded from other evidence, which must have been mainly the evidence for the defence, that the debt which the defendant admitted to have once existed, had not been paid off as the defendant claimed, and gave judgment in the plaintiffs' favour. We do not think that the District Court was entitled to do this. The plaintiffs' action was brought on the bond and, as we have said, the bond itself, and evidence as to its execution by both defendants, was the principal evidence produced in support of the claim. Unless the Court had been prepared to accept the bond as genuine, as against the appellant, it had no right, in our opinion, in the case of a claim based on the bond, to ignore the bond altogether and to give judgment in the appellant's favour on quite other evidence. It makes no difference, in our view, whether or not the bond was a bond in customary form within the meaning of the Contract Law,
- It was the main evidence upon which the claim was based and if the District Court could not accept it it should have dismissed the claim based on that bond. Such a decision would not have affected the plaintiffs' right to bring an action for a debt based on other evidence. Only their claim on that particular bond would have been decided. Having expressed the view that the Court, on the evidence before it, was not entitled to give the judgment that it gave, we must hold also that this appeal must be allowed with costs and judgment entered for the appellant in the lower Court. Appeal allowed with Costs. cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο