Skip to content


Subbamma and ors. Vs. Meenakka - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1895)5MLJ61
AppellantSubbamma and ors.
RespondentMeenakka
Cases ReferredAct. (See Narayan Bhau Bartake v. Tatia Ganpatrao Deshmukh I. L. R.
Excerpt:
- - 1. it is urged in support of the appeal that this money claimed from beeru gounden by the respondent was not a debt due to venkataramana within the meaning of act vii of 1889. this contention appears to me to be well founded. beeru gounden failed to return the same. there is nothing in the evidence to show that the original transaction was anything more than entrustment of the sheep for safe custody and that beeru gounden was under any obligation to pay a liquidated sum as the value of the sheep.muthusami aiyar, j.1. it is urged in support of the appeal that this money claimed from beeru gounden by the respondent was not a debt due to venkataramana within the meaning of act vii of 1889. this contention appears to me to be well founded. the word 'debt' is described in sun-section 2 to section 4 as including any debt except rent, revenue, or profit payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes. though to constitute a debt it is not necessary that there should be a loan, still it is necessary that there should be a sum of money due by beeru gounden to the deceased. in the case before me the deceased left some sheep with beeru gounden. beeru gounden failed to return the same. there is nothing in the evidence to show that the original transaction was anything more than.....
Judgment:

Muthusami Aiyar, J.

1. It is urged in support of the appeal that this money claimed from Beeru Gounden by the respondent was not a debt due to Venkataramana within the meaning of Act VII of 1889. This contention appears to me to be well founded. The word 'debt' is described in Sun-section 2 to Section 4 as including any debt except rent, revenue, or profit payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes. Though to constitute a debt it is not necessary that there should be a loan, still it is necessary that there should be a sum of money due by Beeru Gounden to the deceased. In the case before me the deceased left some sheep with Beeru Gounden. Beeru Gounden failed to return the same. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the original transaction was anything more than entrustment of the sheep for safe custody and that Beeru Gounden was under any obligation to pay a liquidated sum as the value of the sheep. Any promise made to respondent to pay Us. 45 for its value would not make him a debtor to Venkataramana. The respondent was at liberty to sue Beeru Gounden for damages either for wrongful detention of the sheep or treating him as her debtor sue him for the money promised to be paid to her as the value of the sheep. Beeru Gounden never became a debtor to Venkataramana within the meaning of the Act. No certificate can therefore be granted to Respondent under the Act. (See Narayan Bhau Bartake v. Tatia Ganpatrao Deshmukh I. L. R. (1891) B. 580 I set aside the order of the Judge and dismiss the application for a certificate with costs.


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