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

1940 Supreme(Mad) 125

WADSWORTH
Bolisetti Sundaram – Appellant
Versus
Kanuparthi Venkatappadasu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Wadsworth, J.

1. The petitioners were plaintiffs in a small cause suit based on a promissory note, Ex. A, dated 25th March, 1933, for a sum of Rs. 167-12-9. The promissory note reads as if it were a joint promissory note by the first and the second defendants. But it is found that it was not executed by the second defendant though it was executed by the first defendant. What happened was that the two defendants went to the plaintiffs and asked them to write a promissory note in renewal of two earlier promissory notes, the major note being Ex. C, a joint bond executed by both the first and second defendants, the lesser one being Ex. B a promissory note by the first defendant alone. While the suit note was being written the second defendant went away. The scribe wrote at the foot of the note the description of the second defendant as the person who affixed his mark, but no mark or thumb print was in fact taken from the second defendant. The first defendant executed the promissory note and he did not defend the suit nor has he appeared to oppose this revision, petition. The lower Court found that as the note was intended to be a joint note and was not executed by one of the joi








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