Skip to content


Mannava Annapurnamma, Legal Representative of Mannava Chelamarazu (Deceased) Vs. Uppala Akkayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in19Ind.Cas.12; (1913)24MLJ333
AppellantMannava Annapurnamma, Legal Representative of Mannava Chelamarazu (Deceased)
RespondentUppala Akkayya and ors.
Cases ReferredBarber Maran v. Ramana Goundan I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....one of two persons jointly entitled under a mortgage bond, who was not an agent of the other, is a valid discharge of the entire debt. that decision was followed in s.a. no. 1511 of 1912 and s.a. no. 409 of 1905. it was dissented from in s.a. no. 683 of 1907. in a.s. no. 59 of 1908 the question was considered but not decided. we do not in this order of reference consider it necessary to refer to the cases decided by the other courts which have been referred to in the arguments before us. the question is one of importance and considering the conflict of authorities, we refer to the full bench for decision the questionwhether one of three payees of a negotiable instrument can give a valid discharge of the entire debt without the concurrence of the other two payees.2. we may point out that.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The promissory note, Exhibit (B), was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the two plaintiffs described therein as minors and the 2nd defendant who was not a minor. The suit was brought by the two plaintiffs, one of whom the 2nd plaintiff is even now a minor. The question for decision is whether the suit is barred by limitation. It is contended on behalf of the 1st defendant that the 2nd defendant was entitled to receive the amount due under the pro-note and give a full discharge of the entire debt without the concurrence of the two plaintiffs and time therefore ran against all the plaintiffs who were not accordingly entitled to any extension of time under section 7 of the Limitation Act. In support of this contention, the decision in Barber Maran v. Ramana Goundan I.L.R. (1897) M. 461, is relied upon. In that case, it was held that a payment made to one of two persons jointly entitled under a mortgage bond, who was not an agent of the other, is a valid discharge of the entire debt. That decision was followed in S.A. No. 1511 of 1912 and S.A. No. 409 of 1905. It was dissented from in S.A. No. 683 of 1907. In A.S. No. 59 of 1908 the question was considered but not decided. We do not in this order of reference consider it necessary to refer to the cases decided by the other courts which have been referred to in the arguments before us. The question is one of importance and considering the conflict of authorities, we refer to the Full Bench for decision the question

Whether one of three payees of a negotiable instrument can give a valid discharge of the entire debt without the concurrence of the other two payees.

2. We may point out that no valid reason has been suggested before us for any distinction between the claims under a mortgage bond and a negotiable instrument.

3. This Appeal came on for hearing before the Full Bench constituted as above on the 11th November 1912.


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