JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for recovery of a sum of money due under a promissory note executed by the 1st defendant. His case was that the 1st defendant was appointed as the guardian of D. Chalapathirao under the Lunacy Act and that the 1st defendant borrowed the amount for performing his obsequies. The 2nd defendant was impleaded as the widow of Chalapathirao.

In the plaint, he stated that the debt was contracted and spent for the spiritual benefit of late Chalapathirao, the lunatic, and for meeting obsequies expenses and that the debt was consequently binding on his estate. He further stated in paragraph 1 that as the properties belonging to late Chalapathirao were at present in the possession of defendants 1 and 2, they were liable to discharge the suit debt. He prayed for a personal decree against the 1st defendant and as against the properties belonging to Chalapathirao in the hands of defendants 1 and 2.

2. The 1st defendant filed a written statement stating that the amount was borrowed for the obsequies of Chalapathirao, that the 2nd defendant requested her to execute the promissory note, that the 2nd defendant actually received the amount and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document