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

1940 Supreme(Mad) 300

WADSWORTH
M. Varadaraja Perumal Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Palanimuthu Goundan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Wadsworth, J.

1. This revision petition arises out of an application by a judgment-debtor under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 and raises a question regarding the meaning of Section 10(2)(ii) of that Act.

2. The essential facts are that the judgment-debtor purchased lands under a sale deed of February 1923 whereby the purchase price was to be paid by the discharge of two debts and the execution of a promissory note for the balance. This promissory note was twice renewed and the renewed note of 1932 was assigned in 1936 to the plaintiff by endorsement. The plaintiff got a decree on the promissory note and when the judgment-debtor applied to scale down the decree, the plaintiff pleaded that the liability was one in respect of which a charge was provided under Section 55(iv)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act and that therefore the provisions of Section 8 of Madras Act IV of 1938 could not be applied.

3. For the purpose of deciding this case, we assume that the decision in Elumalai Chetty v. Balakrishna Mudaliar AIR1922Mad344 is correct, though there is some conflict of authority on the question whether a mere endorsement of a promissory note which represents unpaid purchase

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