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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 266

VARADACHARIAR
Anumolu Narayana Rao, minor by their mother and guardian Anumolu Ramadevamma – Appellant
Versus
Ghattaraju Venkatappayya – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Varadachariar, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for money, instituted by the indorsee of a promissory note (Ex. A) dated 8th August, 1925, for Rs. 5,000 executed in favour of the 4th defendant by one A.Venkatarayudu deceased (hereinafter referred to as A.V.). The endorsement purports to have been made on 2nd July, 1926, in consideration of the plaintiff undertaking to pay off the debt due by the 4th defendant to one G. Venkatarayudu (hereinafter referred to as G.V.) under Ex. B, a pronote dated 2nd August, 1924, for Rs. 4,000. It is common ground that after the suit note was endorsed to the plaintiff, a notice was sent through D.W. 4, a vakil of Guntur, demanding payment of the money, and that A.V. sent a reply stating that the pronote was devoid of consideration. The reply notice is not now forthcoming and it is therefore not possible to say nor is D.W. 4 able to remember what more was stated in it as to the circumstances under which and the purpose for which the note was executed. Notwithstanding this reply which repudiated liability, this suit was instituted only on the last day of the period of limitation, and more than a year and a half after A.V.s death.

2. The ap


























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