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

1962 Supreme(Mad) 64

S.RAMACHANDRA.IYER, ANANTANARAYANAN
Bichal Naidu – Appellant
Versus
S. K. Muthuramalingam – Respondent


Advocates:
G. Ramanujam, for Petitioner.
V.C. Srikumar, for Respondents.

Anantanarayanan, J.-

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









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