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

1928 Supreme(Mad) 44

KUMARASWAMI SASTRI, REILLY
Samudrula Venkatakishnayya – Appellant
Versus
Venkadari Rangayya Chetty And – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a promissory note executed by defendant 1. Defendants 2 and 3 are brothers of defendant 1 and are the appellants before us. The plaintiffs case is that the defendants were members of an undivided family and that defendant 1 executed the note as managing member of the family for family purposes. Defendants 2 and 3 denied that they are members of the undivided family and pleaded a partition in 1910 and also pleaded that the debt was not contracted for family necessity. The Subordinate Judge disbelieved their partition and passed a decree for the amount claimed against the three defendants. To prove the partition the defendants allege that they have put in a list which purports to be a list of the properties which fell to the share of defendants 2 and 3 and that list is signed by all the parties and also by the attesting witnesses. The Subordinate Judge rejected the list as inadmissible for want of registration and on the other evidence held against the partition. It is argued in appeal that the list was wrongly rejected as inadmissible for want of registration, and before we can satisfactorily dispose of the appeal






















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