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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.