Decided on December 01,1972



- (1.) One K. Bala Brahmaiah, the husband of the 1st defendant and the father of defendants 2 to 4 had executed a promissory note Ex A-1 on June 11, 1963 in favour of one D. Kotaiab, the husband of the 3rd plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 to 7, for a sum of Ks. 403/- repayable with interest at 9% per annum. Subsequent to the execution of the promissory note and before 21-6-1966, Kotaiah and thereafter Brabmaian died. On June 21, 1966, a part payment of Rs. 4/- was said to have been made by the 1st defendant towards the pronote debt and an endorsement Ex. A-2 to that effect was: made on the reverse of the pronote. The plaintiffs filed S.C. No. 300/69 on the file of the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Magistrate, Narasaraopet, against the defendants, the legal representatives of late Brahmaiah on September 26, 1969, for the recovery of a sum of Ks. 500/- on the foot of the promissory note Ex. A-1. The 1st defendant is the wife and defendants 2 and 3 are the sons and the 4th defendant is the daughter of late Brahmaiah. The defence set up by the defendants was that they were not aware of either the borrowal or execution of the pronote Ex. A-l by late Brahmaiah, that the endorsement under Ex. A-2 was not signed by the 1st defendant nor did she pay a sum of Rs. 4/- as per the endorsement and therefore the suit was barred by limitation, that there was no proper presentation of the plaint and that the suit must be dismissed for the omission on the part of the plaintiffs to produce a succession certificate as required cinder Sec tion 214 of the Indian'Seccession Act, 1925. The plaintiffs examined P. W. 1 the scribe of Ex. A-l and an attestor of Ex. A-2, and P.Ws. 2 and 3, the attestors of the pronote Ex. A-l. P. W. 3 had also attested Ex. A-2 endorsement along with P. W. 1. P. W. 4 is the first plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 examined themselves as D. Ws. 1 and 2 in support of their defence. The trial court, accepting the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 held that the pronote Ex. A-l was true, valid and binding on the defendants, that the part payment under Ex. A-2 by the 1st defendant was true that there was no material defect in presenting the plaint, that there was no need to file a succession certificate and the widow could act for and on behalf of the family and give a valid endorsement Ex. A-2 so as to bind the other members of the family even though one of the sens had attained majority by then, and that the suit was in time. Hence this civil revision petition by the defendants under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act.
(2.) Sri B. V. Subbaiah the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, pressed upon ire the following contentions : 1) The plaint was not properly presented as it was not signed by all the plaintiffs. 2). The suit by the plaintiffs without the production of a succession certificate is not maintainable. 3) The finding of the trial Court that Exs. A-1 and A-2 were true, valid and binding on the defendants is erroneous and illegal and the suit was barred by limitation. 4) In any event, when the endorsement Ex. A-2 was alleged to have been made by the 1st defendant, the widow was not the manager of the family in view of the fact that one of her sons had become a major by then, and hence any endorsement made by her under Ex. A-2 will not bind the other members of the family.
(3.) This claim of the petitioners has been resisted by Mr. K. B. R. Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, contending inter alia that the plaint was properly signed by all the plaintiffs subsequently, that no succession certificate is needed and that the suit claim is binding on all the defendants. Upon the respective contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, the following questions arise for decision : 1) Whether the plaint was not properly presented and whether on that ground the suit is liable to be dismissed ? 2) Whether the suit pronote Ex. A-l was true, valid and supported by consideration? 3) Whether the endorsement Ex.A-2 was true, valid and binding on the defendants? 4) Whether the suit is barred by limi'ation? 5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the suit by the plaintiffs without the production of a succession certificate is maintainable?;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.