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) 156

WADSWORTH
Katikineni Venkata Gopala Narasimha Rama Rao – Appellant
Versus
Chitluri Venkataramayya – Respondent


ORDER

Wadsworth, J.

1. These two appeals raise the question of the liability of the appellant on two missing promissory notes, one for Rs. 9704 dated 16th February 1932 and the other for Rs. 24,400 dated 13th February 1933. The former promissory note formed the subject-matter of O.S. No. 14 of 1935 against which A.S. No. 234 is preferred. The execution of this promissory note was admitted but the defendant (appellant) pleaded that it was discharged except for a small amount. The second promissory note formed the subject-matter of O.S. No. 28 of 1936 (against which A.S. No. 235 is filed) and its execution is totally denied by the appellant. The promisee (plaintiff) was a well-to-do Vaisiya money-lender and it is common ground that up to 28th March 1934, he and the defendant, an important Mokhasadar, were on very friendly terms and had considerable dealings. On 1st February 1934, the defendant made over the income from some of his lands to his wife for a term of years and it is said that this transaction made the respondent uneasy about his advances to the appellant. On 17th February 1934, both the parties were at Ellore and it is alleged that the respondent, accompanied by P.W. 2, who



























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