Skip to content


Kolluru Venkataratnam Vs. Pusapati Venkamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in95Ind.Cas.267
AppellantKolluru Venkataratnam
RespondentPusapati Venkamma
Cases ReferredNaba Kumar Choudhury v. Higheazany
Excerpt:
.....borrower whose mortgage has invoked section 69 of the transfer of property act, is to file a civil suit and in such suit the court has power to grant injunction and to impose condition for the grant thereof--section 17; [a.p. shah c.j., f.m. ibrahim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] proceedings under section 17 power of the tribunal to pass any interim order held, once the possession of the secured asset is taken, there would be no occasion for the tribunal to order redelivery of possession till final determination of the issue. in other words, it is only when the tribunal comes to the conclusion that any of the measures, referred to in section 13 (4) taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of the act and the rules made thereunder, then only the..........plaint was called for because the basis of plaintiff's right to sue had been jeopardised by a decision in another suit that a similar endorsement on a similar pro-note was a forgery. this decision was passed after the plaint in this suit was filed and the application for amendment of the plaint was put in promptly. the amendment if allowed merely gives plaintiff another 'string to her bow,' in respect of her claim that the original liability of defendant under the suit note to nagayya has now passed into a liability to herself. defendant doe3 not seem to plead that he is not liable under the note, provided the suit is in time. in these circumstances the ruling in naba kumar choudhury v. higheazany : air1925cal419 cited by the lower court is in paint and the amendment does not affect.....
Judgment:

1. The amendment of the plaint was called for because the basis of plaintiff's right to sue had been jeopardised by a decision in another suit that a similar endorsement on a similar pro-note was a forgery. This decision was passed after the plaint in this suit was filed and the application for amendment of the plaint was put in promptly. The amendment if allowed merely gives plaintiff another 'string to her bow,' in respect of her claim that the original liability of defendant under the suit note to Nagayya has now passed into a liability to herself. Defendant doe3 not seem to plead that he is not liable under the note, provided the suit is in time. In these circumstances the ruling in Naba Kumar Choudhury v. Higheazany : AIR1925Cal419 cited by the lower Court is in paint and the amendment does not affect defendant's liability to pay though there is a change in the manner in which plaintiff claims the debt.

2. In the circumstances lam not prepared to hold that the lower Court has acted with out jurisdiction or has exercised its jurisdiction irregularly in allowing the amendment.

3. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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