VALLURI NAGACHARI Vs. CHITTABHATHINA SUBBAMMA
LAWS(APH)-1954-11-25
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 05,1954

VALLURI NAGACHARI Appellant
VERSUS
CHITTABHATHINA SUBBAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The original promissory note was executed in favour of Parareddy, the manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his two sons Seshareddy & Subba Reddy. There was a partition suit & the promissory note was allotted to the share of Sesha Reddy. The amount due under the promissory note executed in favour of Sesha Reddy was a sum of Rs. The application for scaling down the decree debt was ordered by the District Munsif. He scaled down the amount to the principal amount due under the pronote executed in favour of Perireddy, i.e., Rs. 185--3--9 munus Rs. 60.00 being the payment made on 4.7.1929, with interest at 61/2 per cent, per annum. On appeal, the appellate Judge following the decision of Subba Rao J., reported in -- Hanumayya v. Nayudamma, 1951-2 Mad LJ 400 (A), held that the debt should be traced only to Ex. A-1 viz., the pronote executed in favour of Sesha Reddy and modified the order accoridngly.
(2.) The contention that is raised before me is that the decision in -- Hanumayya v. Nayudamma (A), has really no bearing on the case, and that the decision of Goverindarajachari J., in -- Govinda Nair v. Srinivasa Patter, AIR 1949 Mad 372 (B) applies, as there was a partition suit between Sesha Reddy and Subba Reddy, that under the patition decree the pronote was assigned to Sesha Reddy, and that he is consequently an assignee within the meaning of the definition of "creditor". I agree with the contention of Mr. Purnayya, the learned. advocate for the petitioner, and hold that there was a legal assignment in favour of Sesha Reddy by reason of the partition decree. Mr. Justice Govindarajachari followed the decision in an unreported case in C. R. P. No. 971 of 1942, (Mad) (C), where the partition was evidenced by a partition decree. From the facts set out in O. S. No. 54 of 1948, it is clear that there was a partition suit and must have ended in a decree.
(3.) I, therefore, follow the decision of Govindarajachari J., in -- Govinda Nair v. Srinivasa Patter (B), and hold that, by reason of the partition decree, Sesha Reddy should be regarded as an assignee of Perareddi and that the debt should be traced to the note in favour of Perareddy. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed, and the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ongole set aside and the order of the District Munsif confirmed. As this point was not raised in the courts below and as the petitioner did not ivite the attention of the Courts below to the decision of Govindarajachari J., I think it is fit and proper that no costs should be awarded to the petitioner. Each party will bear his own costs throughout.;


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