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

Middleton, J
SUTHUKKUMAH – Appellant
Versus
VACCHIRAVAGEE – Respondent


Advocates:
Sansoni (E. H. Prins with him), for the defendants, appellants.
Sampayo, K. C., for the plaintiff, respondent.

Suthukkummah V. Vachchiravagee

Present: Mr. Justice Middleton.

SUTHUKKUMMAH v. VACHCHIRAVAGEE et al.

C. R., Batticaloa, 5, 904.

Prescription-Death of payee-Non-interruption-Grant of administration-" Bond "-Prescription Ordinance (Ordinance No. 22 of 1871), ss. 6 and 7.

Where prescription has once begun to run against the payee on any instrument, it is not interrupted by the subsequent death of the payee, and the period between the death of the payee and the grant of administration should not be deducted.

Kulendoeveloe v. Kandeperumal 1 distinguished.

Where an instrument was duly stamped as a bond, but was not notarially attested, -

Held, that such instrument was not a "bond" within the meaning of section 6 of Ordinance No. 22 of 1871.

APPEAL by the defendant from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests (G. W. Woodhouse, Esq. ). The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment.

Sansoni (E. H. Prins with him), for the defendants, appellants.

Sampayo, K. C., for the plaintiff, respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

August 23, 1909. Middleton J. -

This was an action on a document obligatory marked A and dated July 26, 1901, for Rs. 100, by the endorsee from the deceased




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