KOMIRESETTI PEDDAMMA Vs. DESU GURUNADHARAO
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(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
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.