Skip to content


Valluri Nagachari Vs. Chittabhathina Subbamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1439 of 1954
Judge
Reported inAIR1955AP114
ActsMadras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938 - Sections 3; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 35
AppellantValluri Nagachari
RespondentChittabhathina Subbamma
Appellant AdvocateC. Purnayya, Adv. for ;M. Ranganatha Sastry, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA. Raghaviah, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....agriculturists relief act, 1938 and section 35 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - promissory note executed in favour of 'x' manager of joint family consisting his two sons 'y' and 'z' - after partition promissory note allotted to 'y' - 'y' assigned promissory note under partition - during partition suit before it was decided that 'y' was legal assignee of 'x' - ' y ' being assignee of 'x' and debt should be traced to promissory note in favour of 'x'. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is..........in favour of parareddy, the manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his two sons seshareddy & subba reddy. there was a partition suit & the promissory note was allotted to the share of sesha reddy. the amount due under the promissory note executed in favour of sesha reddy was a sum of rs. 254-11-0. the application for scaling down the decree debt was ordered by the district munsif. he scaled down the amount to the principal amount due under the pronote executed in favour of perireddy, i.e., rs. 185--3--9 munus rs. 60/- being the payment made on 4.7.1929, with interest at 61/2 per cent, per annum. on appeal, the appellate judge following the decision of subba rao j., reported in -- 'hanumayya v. nayudamma', 1951-2 mad lj 400 (a), held that the debt should be traced only.....
Judgment:

(1) The original promissory note was executed in favour of Parareddy, the manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his two sons Seshareddy & Subba Reddy. There was a partition suit & the promissory note was allotted to the share of Sesha Reddy. The amount due under the promissory note executed in favour of Sesha Reddy was a sum of Rs. 254-11-0. The application for scaling down the decree debt was ordered by the District Munsif. He scaled down the amount to the principal amount due under the pronote executed in favour of Perireddy, i.e., Rs. 185--3--9 munus Rs. 60/- being the payment made on 4.7.1929, with interest at 61/2 per cent, per annum. On appeal, the appellate Judge following the decision of Subba Rao J., reported in -- 'Hanumayya v. Nayudamma', 1951-2 Mad LJ 400 (A), held that the debt should be traced only to Ex. A-1 viz., the pronote executed in favour of Sesha Reddy and modified the order accoridngly.

(2) The contention that is raised before me is that the decision in -- 'Hanumayya v. Nayudamma (A)', has really no bearing on the case, and that the decision of Goverindarajachari J., in -- Govinda Nair v. Srinivasa Patter', AIR 1949 Mad 372 (B) applies, as there was a partition suit between Sesha Reddy and Subba Reddy, that under the patition decree the pronote was assigned to Sesha Reddy, and that he is consequently an assignee within the meaning of the definition of 'creditor'. I agree with the contention of Mr. Purnayya, the learned. advocate for the petitioner, and hold that there was a legal assignment in favour of Sesha Reddy by reason of the partition decree. Mr. Justice Govindarajachari followed the decision in an unreported case in 'C. R. P. No. 971 of 1942, (Mad) (C)', where the partition was evidenced by a partition decree. From the facts set out in O. S. No. 54 of 1948, it is clear that there was a partition suit and must have ended in a decree.

(3) I, therefore, follow the decision of Govindarajachari J., in -- 'Govinda Nair v. Srinivasa Patter (B)', and hold that, by reason of the partition decree, Sesha Reddy should be regarded as an assignee of Perareddi and that the debt should be traced to the note in favour of Perareddy. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed, and the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ongole set aside and the order of the District Munsif confirmed. As this point was not raised in the courts below and as the petitioner did not ivite the attention of the Courts below to the decision of Govindarajachari J., I think it is fit and proper that no costs should be awarded to the petitioner. Each party will bear his own costs throughout.

(4) Revision allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //