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

1942 Supreme(Mad) 285

Jaldu Balasubramaniam Chetty – Appellant
Versus
D. Kothandaramaswami Nayanim Varu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. The question which has been referred reads as follows:

Whether it is open to a person who is not eo nomine the decree-holder or the transferee of the decree, to apply for its execution on the ground that he is the real owner?

2. As we intend to confine our answer to a case where the facts are similar to those of the present case, it is necessary for us to state them, in so far as they are relevant to the question. One Nookala Manickamma sued the respondents in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor to enforce payment of the amount due on a promissory note which had been executed in her favour and on 9th September 1936, she obtained a decree for the payment of Rs. 6175-3-0 with costs. The appellant who was joint with his father alleges that the promissory note constituted an asset of the family and that Nookala Manickamma held it as the benamidar of his father who was the manager. Nookala Manickamma and the appellants father died before 8th December 1939. On that date the appellant instituted proceedings in execution in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. He claimed to be entitled to execute the decree for two reasons. In the first place, he said that he was the leg




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