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

1941 Supreme(Mad) 153

KING
Kangati Mahanandi Reddi – Appellant
Versus
Panikalapati Venkatappa – Respondent


JUDGMENT

King, J.

1. The respondent 1 in this appeal was the plaintiff in two suits which came finally to be numbered as O.S. No. 15 and O.S. No. 24 of 1938 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kurnool. These were suits mainly, and in O.S. No. 15 wholly, for the recovery of money clue on promissory notes. The claim in O.S. No. 15 was for Rs. 21,788, that in O.S. No. 24 for Rs. 4,698. While these suits were pending respondent 1 on 1st November, 1937 executed a deed of transfer in favour of the present appellant. By this deed he assigned to the appellant the entire amounts due in respect of the two suits for a consideration of Rs. 8,000. The consideration was to be paid within fifteen days of the passing of the decrees in the two suits, but in no case before a date in February 1938. It was also provided that if a decree were not granted in the more important suit (O.S. No. 15) payment of the Rs. 8,000 would not be due, and any payment which might actually have been made should be refunded. On the same day (1st November, 1937) appellant executed in favour of respondent l a promissory note for Rs. 8,000 which was expressed as payable on demand.

2. Decrees in the two suits were in due c












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