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

1970 Supreme(Mad) 329

ISMAIL
K. Ganapathy – Appellant
Versus
Vaidyalingam – Respondent


Advocates:
K.K. Venugopal and S. Ramalingam, for Appellant; T.R. Ramachandran and T.R. Rajagopalan, for Respondent.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff in O. S. No. 39 of 1964 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Nagarcoil is the appellant before this court. The appellant and respondent are brothers and admittedly the respondent executed the suit promissory note, namely, Ex. A. 1 dated 9th December 1959 in favour of the appellant for Rs. 4,000 repayable with interest at 9 per cent, per annum from the date of the promissory note. Equally admittedly the promissory note was executed by the respondent in consideration of the share of the business he obtained under Ex. A. 2 dated 23-4-1135 (M. E.), a copy of the partition deed entered into between the respondent and the appellant. The suit itself was instituted on 10th October 1964. With reference to the date of promissory note, namely, 9th December 1959, certainly on 10th October 1964 the suit was barred by limitation. In order to escape from this bar of limitation, the appellant relied on the deposition of the respondent in O. S. No. 153 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Nagarcoil, dated 24th July 1962, as constituting the acknowledgment of his liability under the suit promissory note. A copy of this deposition


















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