Skip to content


Sanampudi Kodandaramayya Vs. Gurrala Venkatareddi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad74(1); (1940)2MLJ553
AppellantSanampudi Kodandaramayya
RespondentGurrala Venkatareddi
Excerpt:
- king, j.1. as i have already held in c.m.a. no. 207 of 1939 the definition of the word 'creditor' in the act is conclusive in showing that a renewal of a debt to the assignee of the original creditor is a renewal to the 'same' creditor within the meaning of the explanation to section 8 of the madras act iv of 1938. i am now, however, asked to hold that the definition of the word 'creditor' in section 3(v) though it may extend to a first assignee cannot be extended to any subsequent assignee. the number of links in the chain of succession makes, in my opinion, no difference. the point is simply this that the ultimate assignee has, in respect of the debt, succeeded to the legal right of the original creditor in exactly the same sense as the first assignee has. the appeal is dismissed with.....
Judgment:

King, J.

1. As I have already held in C.M.A. No. 207 of 1939 the definition of the word 'creditor' in the Act is conclusive in showing that a renewal of a debt to the assignee of the original creditor is a renewal to the 'same' creditor within the meaning of the explanation to Section 8 of the Madras Act IV of 1938. I am now, however, asked to hold that the definition of the word 'creditor' in Section 3(v) though it may extend to a first assignee cannot be extended to any subsequent assignee. The number of links in the chain of succession makes, in my opinion, no difference. The point is simply this that the ultimate assignee has, in respect of the debt, succeeded to the legal right of the original creditor in exactly the same sense as the first assignee has. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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