Karnataka Court June 1954 Judgments
D. Narasimhiah Vs. Lakshamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Kant185; AIR1954Mys185
Venkataramaiya, J.1. Appellant sued the Respondents for recovery of money due under an on demand promissory note executed by the 1st Respondent in favour of 10th Respondent and endorsed by the latter to appellant. Respondents 2 and 3 are children and Respondent 4 sister of the 1st Respondent. Respondents 5 to 9 are children of 4th Respondent. Appellant claimed to be a holder in due course and to be entitled to a decree against all the Respondents on the ground, money was advanced under the pronote for the benefit of Respondents 1 to 9 and payment was made to the 10th Respondent as consideration for the endorsement. The claim was contested by Respondents 1 to 9 and various pleas were out forward by them. Upholding these pleas the lower Court has dismissed the suit. Although the decree as a whole is challenged in the memorandum of appeal, Sri Janardhan learned Counsel for the appellant conceded that the dismissal of the suit against Respondents 2 to 9 was justified and sought for a decre...
Tag this Judgment!J. Kishenlal Phoolchand Vs. A. Rathan Singh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Kant162; AIR1954Mys162
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The appellant, who is the plaintiff in the Court below, has filed a suit to recover, Rs. 1,15,000/- principal plus Rs. 4,662-8-0 interest on the foot of a deed of simple mortgage admittedly executed by the defendant on 8-1-1951. It bears the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar that the amount was paid in his presence. The defendant has pleaded that he has not received full consideration for the document and has asked for a re-opening of some previous transactions between himself and others Which, according to him, have a bearing on the consideration for the suit document.2. In March 1953 the plaintiff made an application for the appointment of a Receiver for managing and protecting the mortgaged properties and for the collection of rents and profits. In the affidavit annexed to the application, he represented that nearly Rs. 1,41,000/- were due to him by that date including costs, that though in the mortgaged deed the respondent had expressly covenanted with the plain...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›