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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 218

HORACE OWEN COMPTON BEASLEY, KT.
G. Sundaram Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
P. A. Valli Ammal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. This is an application by the defendant in C.S. No. 150 of 1934 for an order staying further proceedings in the suit whether by way of execution or otherwise pending disposal of O.S.A. No. 36 of 1934 which appeal is before us for admission.

2. The following are the facts of the Case. O.S.A. No. 36 of 1934 is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Stone which itself was made on an appeal from an order of the Master. It is necessary to go back to the inception of this matter. The respondent here is a woman. She filed a suit on a promissory note against the appellant claiming Rs. 3,150, the face value of the promissory note being Rs. 4,000. She was unable to produce the promissory note and sued for the lesser amount upon the following ground, namely, that the defendant had made a part payment of Rs. 1,000. That accounts for the suit being for a lesser amount than the face value of the promissory note. As regards her inability to produce it with the plaint she stated in her plaint that she had parted with the promissory note under the following circumstances, namely, that when the defendant made the part-payment of Rs. 1,000 he got fro









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