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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 373

VARADACHARIAR
Subbaratnam Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Gunavanthalal Vidyasankar by agent Narendralal-Gunavanthalal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Varadachariar, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the decree in small cause suit No. 2888 of 1924 on the file of the Small Cause Court, Trichinopoly, is not binding on the plaintiff or the family properties in his hands. The small causes suit was instituted on a promissory note executed by the plaintiffs undivided uncle, one Muthukrishna Chettiar, who died pending that suit. On his death the plaintiff who was then a minor was impleaded as the second defendant and all that appears at present is that he was represented by a Court guardian. The decree and the judgment show that the Court guardian engaged a vakil for the minor plaintiff and it was pleaded on his behalf that the deceased first defendant was not the managing member of the family and that the debt was incurred by him for immoral purposes. An issue was raised whether the suit promissory note was binding on the family. The small cause Judge held that the plaintiff in that suit was entitled to a decree not merely against the assets of the deceased first defendant but also against the family properties of both the defendants, because the promissory note had bee









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