S.RAMACHANDRA.IYER, ANANTANARAYANAN
Bichal Naidu – Appellant
Versus
S. K. Muthuramalingam – Respondent
This Revision proceeding involves a question of some interest, namely, the extent to which section 4 (1) of Madras Act I of 1955 would be operative to split up a debt owed by an agriculturist into the different parts or instalments contemplated by the section, each forming a distinct cause of action both with regard to the right to sue upon the debt, and with regard to limitation The revision petitioner before us is the second defendant in a suit upon a negotiable instrument, under the following circumstances.
The case of plaintiff (respondent) was that the first defendant and his undivided son, the second defendant (revision petitioner), conducted a Mandi business, in respect of which there were dealings with the plaintiff from prior to 1st October, 1953. On 24th March, 1954, the accounts were settled as between the parties, and a balance of Rs. 681-4-11 was due which the revision petitioner acknowledged, and in respect of which he executed a promissory note in the ledger of the plaintiff. The plaint was originally presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul but it was returned by that Court on the ground that the first intstalment due under Act
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.