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

1938 Supreme(Mad) 177

MADHAVAN NAIR
Vakkalanka Kondamma – Appellant
Versus
Kasaneedi Venkatarayadu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. Her suit was for the enforcement of a promissory note dated 9th August, 1929, executed by the first defendant, the undivided father of defendants 2 to 5. The promissory note bears an endorsement on the back of part payment, dated 6th July, 1932. The plaint was filed on 28th June, 1935. The suit note was insufficiently stamped and was inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. The plaintiff therefore on 30th July, 1935, applied for an amendment of the plaint seeking permission to take his cause of action on the promissory note dated 11th August, 1926, which had been cancelled and superseded by the execution of the suit note which was renewal of this note. This note also had been filed along with the suit note. The application for amendment was refused by the learned Judge on the ground that the endorsement dated 6th July, 1932 can only refer to the suit note and cannot be taken as an acknowledgment of the prior promissory note debt. The order further stated:

Even assuming that the endorsement has such an effect, the claim on the prior pronote became barred after the expiry of three years from the dat















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