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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 206

VARADACHARIAR
Addepalli Lakshmanaswamy – Appellant
Versus
Gadireddi Narasimha Rao – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Varadachariar, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decree on a promissory note (Ex. A) admittedly executed by him in favour of a Marwari firm of Rajahmundry for Rs. 3,250. The defence on the merits is framed in very general terms in issue No. 1, vis., "was the pro-note executed under the circumstances mentioned in the written statement and is it void?" The question has been argued before us under various aspects. One of the pleas put forward by the defendant was that the pro-note was executed nominally. The learned Judge rightly observes that on the defendants own showing it is difficult to understand this plea. The substance of the defence, however, is that the execution of this note is so connected with certain transactions between that Marwari firm and one G. Krishnamurthi, a merchant of Rajahmundry, that the defendant should be held to have incurred no liability whatever except to see that Krishnamurthi paid up his dues to the Marwari firm or that the transaction was illegal as being the result of an agreement to stifle a proposed criminal prosecution by the Marwari firm against Krishnamurthi. The plaintiff apparently wanted to avoid an investigation of so










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