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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 96

E.PADMANABHAN
Kulandaisami and another – Appellant
Versus
Lourdusami – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. R. Kannan, Advocate for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 200 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvaiyaru, who have succeeded before the trial Court and lost before the first appellate Court are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is

directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur made in A.S. No. 105 of 1986 in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granting a decree as prayed for by the respondent/plaintiff.

2. At the time of admission, the following two substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:

1) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the suit claim is not barred by limitation especially when the suit is filed beyond the period of three years from the date of first endorsement and the second endorsement is more than 3 years and 2 days after the date of the first endorsement?

2) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in assuming that the defendants are debtors as defined under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1970.

3. Heard Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan for the appellants and Mr.R. Kannan for the respondents.

4. For convenience, the parties to this appeal will be refer



















































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