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

1939 Supreme(Mad) 145

PANDRANG ROW
Rakapalli Vira Raghavulu Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Dhara China Rajalingam – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pandrang Row, J.

1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Kistna dated 12th April, 1935, in O.S. No. 15 of 1933, a suit to recover the amount due on a promissory note Ex. A, dated 12th February, 1930, executed by the first defendant in favour of the late Mallikarjuna Rao, the father of the plaintiffs indorsers. The suit was directed not merely against the maker of the note, the first defendant, but also against his father, the second defendant, and his son, the third defendant. It may be mentioned in this connection that the first defendant became insolvent and the Official Receiver of Vizagapatam was brought on record as the fourth defendant. The learned District Judge passed a decree only as against defendants 1 and 4, that is to say, as against the estate of the first defendant, and dismissed the suit as against defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal from the decree of the Court below dismissing the suit against defendants 2 and 3, and the only question for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against defendants 2 and 3.

2. It must be remembered that the suit is by an indorsee and is based




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