SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1949 Supreme(SC) 56

LORDS SIMONDS, LORD RADCLIFFE, SIR LIONEL LEACH
Nagarmals – Appellant
Versus
Bajranglal – Respondent


From the good place Sambalpur.

I am writing to brother Thanduramji Bajrang Lal from Sambalpur. Compliments of Ramanand Ganpat Rai. On adjustment of account Rs. 33,307-9-3 (Rupees Thirty-three thousand three hundred and seven, annas nine and pies three) is due to you till Kartik Sudi 1, 1991. I shall pay you the money when you demand it. Dated the Kartik Sudi 1, 1991 Sambat.

On 4 one-anna Revenue Stamps.

Sd. Ramanand Ganpatrai,

By the pen of Nagarmal.

Nor, though at an earlier stage in the proceedings it was contended that at the date of the hand note the appellants other than appellant l had for many years been living and messing separately from him and that for that reason the hand note did not bind them, are its validity and binding effect challenged except upon the single ground that the hand note was given in respect of debts which were already barred by the law of limitation. It is clear that this plea cannot avail appellant l who himself signed the note. This was conceded by learned counsel for the appellants. On the other hand, it appears to be well-established law that a manager as such is not competent to bind the other members of a joint family by a promise to pay a debt alrea













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top