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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 79

VENKATARAMANA RAO
S. Muthuswami Maniagaran – Appellant
Versus
P. E. R. M. Annamalai Chettiar Firm – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The suit is upon a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000 on the 1st August 1929. Defendant 3 is the son of defendant 1. The father of defendant 3 died on 8th May 1923, leaving behind him a widow who is defendant 1 and a minor son defendant 3 herein and two unmarried daughters. The properties left by the father were managed by defendant 1 as defendant 3s guardian. In 1926 she purported to execute a power of attorney in favour of defendant 2 authorising him to manage the estate on her behalf. On the 27th September 1927 both defendants 1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000 from the plaintiff on a promissory note Ex. A-l bearing the said date. The said promissory note runs as follows :

Promissory note executed on 27th September 1927, in favour of P.A.R.M. Annamalai Chettiar A vergal by us both jointly, viz., (1) Kamakshi Ammal, wife of Nithyananda Muthuswami Moniyagarar, residing at Puthayakudi, Ayakudi Zamin, Palni Taluk and (2) her authorized Agent, Vadivelu Maniyagarar, son of Viswanatha Maniyagarar, residing at the said place.

We have on this date received in cash Rs. 1,000" from your partner Periakaruppa

























































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