Skip to content


Govinda Mudeley and ors. Vs. R. Mutthusawmy Pillay - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.169
AppellantGovinda Mudeley and ors.
RespondentR. Mutthusawmy Pillay
Excerpt:
document, execution of - executant executing document as guardian of another--liability of person for whom guardian acts--recital in document as to guardianship, whether necessary. - .....on behalf of his brother. this finding is borne out by exhibit g itself to a certain extent. the bond transferred is referred to; it was in fact in favour of both subramania pillay and his brother part of the consideration for the transfer is stated to be due by manonmani ammal, that is really by both the brothers as the money was due from manonmani ammal as guardian of both. the whole amount of the bond due to both the brothers is transferred. no authority has been cited to show that it is necessary that the executant should describe himself as guardian of a person who is sought to be bound by the bond.2. it is argued that, in arriving at the finding that the bond was not discharged, the lower appellate court omitted to consider exhibit i and that if that document had been considered.....
Judgment:

1. The chief question argued in second appeal is that, under Exhibit G the share of Subramania Pillai's insane brother was not transferred to plaintiff. The executant, Subramania Pillai, it is true, does not describe himself as making the transfer as guardian of his brother. The Subordinate Judge has found that, as a matter of fact he made the transfer both on behalf of himself and on behalf of his brother. This finding is borne out by Exhibit G itself to a certain extent. The bond transferred is referred to; it was in fact in favour of both Subramania Pillay and his brother Part of the consideration for the transfer is stated to be due by Manonmani Ammal, that is really by both the brothers as the money was due from Manonmani Ammal as guardian of both. The whole amount of the bond due to both the brothers is transferred. No authority has been cited to show that it is necessary that the executant should describe himself as guardian of a person who is sought to be bound by the bond.

2. It is argued that, in arriving at the finding that the bond was not discharged, the lower Appellate Court omitted to consider Exhibit I and that if that document had been considered the Sub-Judge might not have found Exhibits IV and V to be forgeries, but, we find nothing in Exhibit I that would throw any light on the genuineness or otherwise of Exhibits IV and V. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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