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

1974 Supreme(Mad) 243

RAMAPRASADA RAO, MAHARAJAN
P. Subbiah – Appellant
Versus
A. Shanmugham – Respondent


Advocates:
A. V. Raghavan, for Appellant; R. Mohan and V. R. Nagarajah, for Respondent.

Judgement

RAMAPRASADA RAO, J. :- The plaintiff in O. S. No. 277 of 1968, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,400/- on the fact of a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 23-11-1964 under Ex.A-1. In the plaint, the bar as to limitation is got over by reference to Ex. A-2, which is a counter-affidavit filed by the defendant in the insolvency proceedings in I. P. No. 6 of 1967, on the file of the. Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruchirapalli. The plaintiff himself was the petitioning creditor in the above insolvency petition. In answer to the petition to adjudicate the defendant as insolvent, the defendant stated, in so far as the suit promissory note was concerned, no amount was paid to the plaintiff for principal or interest and added that he paid a sum of Rs. 600/- in March, 1965, towards the promissory note land another sum of Rs. 1,500/- in March, 1966, towards the interest on the promissory note to the father of the plaintiff. He would also take up the plea that the promissory note was benami for the plaintiff's father. On the basis of these allegations in Ex. A-2 in














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