Subbanna and ors. Vs. Munekka

Subbanna and ors. vs Munekka

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 30, 1894

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/790201

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/790201
Court: Chennai
Judge: Muttusami Ayyar, J.
Decided On: Oct 30, 1894
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Succession Certificate Act - Act VII of 1889, Section 4, Sub-setion (2)--Debt--Unliquidated claim. - - 1. It is urged in support of this appeal that the money claimed from Beera Gowdoo by the respondent was not a debt due to Venkataramanna within the meaning of Act VII of 1889. This contention appears to me to be ...

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subbanna and ors.

Respondent

Munekka

Legal References

Cases Referred: Act. See Narayan Bhau Bartake v. Tatia Ganpatrao Deshmukh I.L.R.
Reported In: (1895)ILR18Mad457

Excerpt

succession certificate act - act vii of 1889, section 4, sub-setion (2)--debt--unliquidated claim. - - 1. it is urged in support of this appeal that the money claimed from beera gowdoo by the respondent was not a debt due to venkataramanna within the meaning of act vii of 1889. this contention appears to me to be well founded. beera gowdoo failed to return the same. there is nothing in the evidence to show that the original transaction was any thing more than entrustment of the sheep for safe custody, and that beera gowdoo was under any obligation to pay a liquidabed sum as the value of the sheep.muttusami ayyar, j.1. it is urged in support of this appeal that the money claimed from beera gowdoo by the respondent was not a debt due to venkataramanna within the meaning of act vii of 1889. this contention appears to me to be well founded. the word 'debt' is described in sub-section 2 to section 4 as including any debt except rent, revenue or profit payable in respect of lands 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 beera gowdoo to the deceased. in the case before me the deceased left some sheep with beera gowdoo. beera gowdoo failed to return the same. there is nothing in the evidence to show that the original transaction was any thing more than entrustment of the sheep for safe custody, and that beera gowdoo was under any obligation to pay a liquidabed sum as the value of the sheep. any promise made to respondent to pay rs. 45 for its value would not make him a debtor to venkataramanna. the respondent was at liberty to sue beera gowdoo 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. beera gowdoo never became a debtor to venkataramanna 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. 15 bom. 580.2. i set aside the order of the judge and dismiss the application for a certificate with costs.

Full Judgment

Muttusami Ayyar, J.

1. It is urged in support of this appeal that the money claimed from Beera Gowdoo by the respondent was not a debt due to Venkataramanna within the meaning of Act VII of 1889. This contention appears to me to be well founded. The word 'debt' is described in Sub-section 2 to Section 4 as including any debt except rent, revenue or profit payable in respect of lands 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 Beera Gowdoo to the deceased. In the case before me the deceased left some sheep with Beera Gowdoo. Beera Gowdoo failed to return the same. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the original transaction was any thing more than entrustment of the sheep for safe custody, and that Beera Gowdoo was under any obligation to pay a liquidabed sum as the value of the sheep. Any promise made to respondent to pay Rs. 45 for its value would not make him a debtor to Venkataramanna. The respondent was at liberty to sue Beera Gowdoo 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. Beera Gowdoo never became a debtor to Venkataramanna 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. 15 Bom. 580.

2. I set aside the order of the Judge and dismiss the application for a certificate with costs.

Same Parties Subbanna and ors. vs Munekka Same Subject Civil Same Judge Muttusami Ayyar, J.

Civil