Decided on August 22,1901



- (1.) Plaintiff sues on a hypothecation bond, Exhibit J, dated 31 October 1897, purporting to be made between the plaintiff on the one part and the 1st, 2nd and 3 defendants as well as one Pothu Chetty, now deceased, on the other part, and to be executed by the 1 defendant for himself and for the 2nd defendant, his minor son. The 3 defendant and the deceased Pothu Chetty are as described in Exhibit J, the younger brothers of the 1 defendant. Exhibit J recites that the 1 and 3 defendants and Pothu Chetty execute the document on their behalf respectively and the 1 defendant also on behalf of the 2nd defendant a minor.
(2.) The 1 defendant on behalf of himself and the 2nd defendant denied the execution by him of the hypothecation bond, and also contended that no suit could be brought upon the bond apparently on the ground that it was not completed. The 3 defendant also denied the genuineness of Exhibit J, and contended that the loans recited in Exhibit J were not contracted for his benefit, and that even if Exhibit J were genuine, he was not liable to be sued thereon inasmuch as the 1 defendant did not execute the same on his behalf, or of the deceased Pothu Chetty, and that no suit could be brought on Exhibit J, as it was not completed, and neither ho nor the deceased Pothu Chetty executed or agreed to execute the same. Both the 1 and 3 defendants also alleged in their written statements that the 1 defendant was not the managing member of the family.
(3.) The Subordinate Judge found the Exhibit J to be genuine, and that the consideration therein recited was real and binding upon the family, and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff against defendants 1, 2, 3 and the property hypothecated under Exhibit J.;

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