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

1976 Supreme(Mad) 168

RAMAPRASADA RAO, RATNAVEL PANDIAN
Seth Dhanoomal Parsaram – Appellant
Versus
P. Kuppuraj – Respondent


Advocates:
T.V. Balakrishnan for Appellant; N. Sivamani and V. Narayanaswami, for Respondents.

Judgement

RAMAPRASADA RAO, J.:- The first and the second defendants in O. S. No. 67 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore are the appellants in A. S. No. 520 of 1972. This is an appeal filed in forma pauperis, After the presentation of the appeal, the second appellant died and the learned counsel for the first appellant has filed a memo to that effect and stated that he is one of the sons of the second appellant and he may be recognised as his legal representative. He would also say that he might be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased second appellant as representative of his estate. We accept the memo.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the foot of four promissory notes. The borrowings were almost consecutively made by the first defendant as the principal debtor and guaranteed by his father the second defendant. They were consecutive in the sense that the borrowings were on the 12th, 13th, 16th and 27th of August 1966. Exhibits A-1 and A-2 are the promissory notes admittedly signed by the first appellant on the 12th

and the 27th of August 1966. The consideration paid thereunder is also admitted. Exhibits A-3 and A-4 are two other pr

























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