Skip to content


Sugappa, Minor, by His Next Friend and Guardian Chengalappa Vs. Govindappa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1902)12MLJ351
AppellantSugappa, Minor, by His Next Friend and Guardian Chengalappa
RespondentGovindappa and ors.
Excerpt:
- - 'we are satisfied upon the evidence that the printed portion of exhibit e7 was signed by all the defendants, and that document shows that before the debt became barred an extension of time was granted up to the 23rd december 1895 inclusive. the judge is clearly mistaken in holding that this was a negotiable promissory note and in holding that ail assignment by separate deed was invalid......that this was a negotiable promissory note and in holding that ail assignment by separate deed was invalid.2. we must reverse the decree of the district judge and give the plaintiff a joint decree against the three defendants for rs. 2,517-2-4 up to date of plaint, plus six per cent, on the principal from date of plaint till this date and upon the aggregate amount including costs in the lower court and this court from this date to date of payment.
Judgment:

1. As it is clear that the Judge in fact admitted in evidence Exhibit C, the objection made under Section 35 of the Stamp Act is of no avail. Section 36 is clear as to this. It is argued that the Judge intended to reject the document as is shown by paragraph 15 of his judgment; but even if such were his intention when we find that he has admitted it and made the endorsement required by Section 140 of the Civil Procedure Code and written no endorsement of rejection as required by Section 142 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is impossible to admit this argument. There is no bar by limitation. 'We are satisfied upon the evidence that the printed portion of Exhibit E7 was signed by all the defendants, and that document shows that before the debt became barred an extension of time was granted up to the 23rd December 1895 inclusive. The Court was closed on the 23rdDecember 1898, and the plaint was presented on the 26th December, the 1st subsequent day on which the Court was open. It was, therefore, in time. The Judge is clearly mistaken in holding that this was a negotiable promissory note and in holding that ail assignment by separate deed was invalid.

2. We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and give the plaintiff a joint decree against the three defendants for Rs. 2,517-2-4 up to date of plaint, plus six per cent, on the principal from date of plaint till this date and upon the aggregate amount including costs in the lower Court and this Court from this date to date of payment.


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