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

1960 Supreme(Mad) 229

VEERASWAMI
N. V. Thiruvenkidaswami Mudaliar – Appellant
Versus
Palani Ammal – Respondent


Advocates:
S. Sitarama Ayyar and S. Rajaraman, for Appellant.
S. Mohan, for Respondents.

JUDGMENT.-

This Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the Decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Erode in A.S. No. 8 of 1957 in so far as they are against him. The suit was to recover a certain sum of money due under a promissory note Exhibit A-1, dated 16th March, 1952 and executed by the first defendant. The second defendant is the daughter of the first defendant and had in her favour a deed of surrender Exhibit B-1, dated 22nd April, 1954 and executed by her mother, in respect of certain properties which the first defendant was in possession of as the widow of her husband and certain other properties which belonged to the first defendant as her stridhana properties. The first defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and also the consideration therefor. The defence of the second defendant was that the suit being on a promissory note, she was not a proper party to the suit and that in any case she could not be made liable for the debt due under the suit promissory note. As against this plea the case for the plaintiff was that the second defendant was in the nature of an universal donee and that, therefore, she would be liable for the deb











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