Skip to content


Gouri Amma Ratnamma Vs. Narayana Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No.483 of 1960 and Civil Misc. Petn. No. 7380 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1963Ker246
ActsNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 70
AppellantGouri Amma Ratnamma
RespondentNarayana Pillai
Appellant Advocate V.M.B. Menon, Adv.
Respondent Advocate P.S. Venkiteswara Iyer, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....is no case for interference in revision. the lower appellate court found on the evidence that the promissory note on which the suit was based was executed at edapalli within the jurisdiction of the parur court where the suit was brought; and that was enough to give that court jurisdiction to try the suit. that finding is a legitimate inference from the circumstance that the address of both parties as given in the promissory note is in edapalli and that a travancore stamp was affixed. whereas, if as contended by the appellant, the execution was in what was then british malabar--the promissory note is of the date 6-10-1944 -- a british indian stamp ought to have been used. that apart, where there is no indication in the promissory note -- there is none in this case -- as to where payment.....
Judgment:

1. This second appeal by the defendant from an order made in an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (a) Civil P. C., does not lie. The appellant has however made the application, C. M. P. No. 7380 of 1962, to convert the second appeal into a civil revision petition. But I see no purpose in allowing the conversion since it seems to me that there is no case for interference in revision. The lower appellate Court found on the evidence that the promissory note on which the suit was based was executed at Edapalli within the jurisdiction of the Parur Court where the suit was brought; and that was enough to give that Court jurisdiction to try the suit. That finding is a legitimate inference from the circumstance that the address of both parties as given in the promissory note is in Edapalli and that a Travancore stamp was affixed. Whereas, if as contended by the appellant, the execution was in what was then British Malabar--the promissory note is of the date 6-10-1944 -- a British Indian stamp ought to have been used. That apart, where there is no indication in the promissory note -- there is none in this case -- as to where payment is to be made it is reasonable to assume that presentation and payment at the address given of the promissor was intended.

2. I dismiss the second appeal with costs and the C. M. P. without costs.

3. The suit is of the year 1950 and the first Court will proceed to dispose of it with the of most expedition.


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