Skip to content


Nayapati Ranganadham Pantulu Vs. Praguda Appala Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.621a
AppellantNayapati Ranganadham Pantulu
RespondentPraguda Appala Naidu and ors.
Cases ReferredDorasinga Tevar v. Arunacheam Chetti
Excerpt:
vendor and purchaser - consideration agreed to be paid by vendee to vendor's credit or--vendee's failure to keep his promise--suit by vendor's creditor against vendor and decree thereon--suit by vendor against vendee without discharge of decree obtained by vendor's creditor--whether premature. - - the question is whether the suit is maintainable, and on the facts above stated we are clearly of opinion that it is.1. the 1st plaintiff and his brother sold certain property to 1st defendant. the 1st defendant instead of paying the consideration to the vendors agreed to pay the consideration to a creditor of the vendors. this agreement was in 1899. up to 1902 the 1st defendant had not paid the creditor. the creditor brought a suit in 1902 and got a decree against the plaintiff. the plaintiff now sues to recover the consideration with interest. the question is whether the suit is maintainable, and on the facts above stated we are clearly of opinion that it is. the case is in essentials on all fours with the case of dorasinga tevar v. arunacheam chetti 23 m.k 441. we, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. The 1st plaintiff and his brother sold certain property to 1st defendant. The 1st defendant instead of paying the consideration to the vendors agreed to pay the consideration to a creditor of the vendors. This agreement was in 1899. Up to 1902 the 1st defendant had not paid the creditor. The creditor brought a suit in 1902 and got a decree against the plaintiff. The plaintiff now sues to recover the consideration with interest. The question is whether the suit is maintainable, and on the facts above stated we are clearly of opinion that it is. The case is in essentials on all fours with the case of Dorasinga Tevar v. Arunacheam Chetti 23 M.k 441. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.


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