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

1952 Supreme(Pat) 59

NARAYAN, RAI
Mt. Rajendrabati – Appellant
Versus
Mungalal – Respondent


Judgment

Narayan, J.

1. This is an application under Sec.25, Small Cause Courts Act and the plaintiff is the petitioner.

2. The plaintiff had sued to recover Rs. 400 as, principal and Rs. 100 as interest on the basis of a handnote dated 1st Chait 1354 Fasli said to have been executed by defendant 1 in favour of her deceased husband.

3. The defendants resisted the claim on various grounds and one of the contentions urged by them was that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit. This contention found favour with the learned Small Cause Court Judge who accordingly dismissed the claim. The view taken by the Small Cause Court Judge is that the plaintiff being the widow of the person in whose favour the handnote had been executed could not maintain the suit for the recovery of her share of the money because of Sec.214, Succession Act. Admittedly, the lady has not obtained a succession certificate and according to the view taken by the learned Small Cause Court Judge she could not sue to recover the amount due on the handnote without obtaining a succession certificate. Sec.214 lays down, amongst other things, that no Court shall pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for pay










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