ANDHRA BANK LIMITED Vs. R SRINIVASAN
LAWS(SC)-1961-8-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
August 31,1961
ANDHRA BANK
Appellant
VERSUS
R.SRINIVASAN
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
NAGAKANGNAO PASHI VS. SHRI R.K. MAYANGMI AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-1992-8-12] [REFERRED TO]SOBHA RAM VS. BAHADUR SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-1972-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
Kalyanmal Mills Ltd. Indore VS. Hamida [LAWS(MPH)-1962-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
YOGANDRA BHAGAT VS. PRITLAL YADAVA [LAWS(PAT)-2009-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
PRALHAD RAMBHAU DHOLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-2-240] [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH VS. MOHANI DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-1973-10-2] [REFERRED]
RANGASWAMI NAICKER VS. RANGAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1968-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
GOURI BAHU VS. GOPALDAS POTORAM JAISW DEVI [LAWS(MPH)-2008-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
PARBATI DEBI VS. MAHADEO PRASAD TIBREWALLA [LAWS(SC)-1979-7-27] [RELIED ON]
RAMESHWARLAL VS. RAGHUNATH DAS [LAWS(RAJ)-1976-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN PRASAD VS. BITESHWAR SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1982-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH VS. DISTRICT JUDGE MIRZAPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1985-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
BUCHIRAIU D VS. D BANGARAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1998-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWATH RAO VS. SUSHILABAI [LAWS(KAR)-1970-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
R D SURESH @ MANJUNATH VS. R A MANJUNATH [LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-102] [REFERRED TO]
KALYANMAL MILLS VS. VOLIMOHAMMED [LAWS(MPH)-1962-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
HAFIJAN BIBI VS. S K ABDUL JABBAR [LAWS(CAL)-1977-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
ANNAMACHARYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS. NUKA BANGI REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2005-10-69] [REFERRED TO]
BONDA MARY VS. SIMHAGIRI CHITS FUNDS PVT LTD [LAWS(APH)-2022-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGAM VS. SYNDICATE BANK [LAWS(MAD)-1998-10-76] [REFERRED TO]
N K PUSHPAM ACHI VS. K RAJAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-291] [REFERRED TO]
KARAMJIT KAUR VS. GURBANT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-4-93] [REFERRED TO]
GULAM RASOOL VS. QUASIM BEE [LAWS(APH)-2000-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
PARWATIBAI VS. RAMRAO BARIKRAO LAHANE [LAWS(BOM)-2001-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH VS. RAM NATH [LAWS(DLH)-1973-10-13] [CITED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. VODAFONE GROUP PLC UNITED KINGDOM & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-135] [REFERRED TO]
K P MATHEW VS. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-1973-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE DAVIS MOOKEN VS. OLLUKARAN THOMAKUTTY VARIED [LAWS(KER)-1974-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
TEJPAL SINGH VS. RAMESH KUMAR SAINI [LAWS(P&H)-2022-12-154] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SRI GOBINDA ROY JEW VS. BHABA SARAN SETT [LAWS(CAL)-1974-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ MAIRA VS. STEELSONS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1974-3-5] [REFERRED]
RABINDER NATH MAIRA VS. STEELSONS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1974-3-12] [REFERRED]
GOPAL DAS VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1953-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV RAJ VS. J&K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(J&K)-2010-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
HIRABHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. LT HIRABEN WD/O BHAGUBHAI MANILAL [LAWS(GJH)-2014-6-80] [REFERRED TO]
NATTHU VS. SHIVRAM [LAWS(MPH)-1986-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. ASHA GOEL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
MUSSAMAT ASHIA KHATUN VS. KARUNA SINGH [LAWS(CAL)-2000-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
CH SRINIVASARAO VS. CH NARASIMHARAO [LAWS(APH)-1979-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR CHANDRA ROY VS. ABANIDHAR ROY [LAWS(CAL)-1979-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
BHUTESHWAR VS. INDRU [LAWS(HPH)-2014-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
MOMAMMED ALI P VS. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY ASST [LAWS(KER)-1977-6-45] [REFERRED TO]
ASMA PRAVEEN VS. BADRU NISA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-88] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA KAPOOR VS. PAWAN CHANDRA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
KASTURILAL GOPALDAS VS. PRABHAKAR MARTAND PATKI [LAWS(MPH)-1968-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
DOKALA BUCHIRAJU VS. DOKALA BANGARAMMA DIED [LAWS(APH)-1998-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
LABANYA PROVA GUHA VS. BALAI CHANDRA MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1969-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT NARAIN VS. SITA RAM [LAWS(HPH)-1962-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH ALIAS MARU VS. INDER SINGH ALIAS DILBHAG SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-136] [REFERRED TO]
JAGGERNATH SINGH VS. NARAYAN SAROGI [LAWS(PAT)-1964-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
SARESHSINGH VS. RAJA RAM SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1992-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
P.SANJEEVA REDDY VS. P.LAKSHMI DEVI [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-8-92] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Gajendragadkar, J. -
(1.)This appeal has been brought to this Court with a certificate issued by the Madras High Court under Art.133 (1) (a) of the Constitution and it arises out of a suit (O. S. No. 83 of 1945) filed by the appellant the Andhra Bank Limited against the twelve respondents. This suit was based on two foreign judgments, Exs. P-1 and P-3, which had been obtained by the appellant against the said respondents in Hyderabad. Respondent 1 is the son of Raja Bahadur Krishnamachari (hereafter called Raja Bahadur) who died in March, 1943. Respondent 1 and his father were residents of Hyderabad. Raja Bahadur was practising as an advocate in Hyderabad and subsequently he was appointed the Advocate-General. In September, 1935, Respondent 1 was indebted to the appellant in the sum of Rs. 14,876-3-7 in respect of an overdraft account. In May, l938, he became indebted to the appellant in the sum of Rs. 8,217-ll-6 in respect of his borrowings on a pledge of sanitary-ware goods. Raja Bahadur had executed a letter of guarantee (Ex. P.18) in January, 1932 whereby he guaranteed the repayment of monies borrowed by Respondent 1 up to the limit of Rs. 20,000. As the amounts due from Respondent 1 remained unpaid the appellant had to institute two suits in the Hyderabad High Court for their recovery. These suits were numbered 47 and 53 of Fazli 1353. After they were filed in the said High Court they were transferred to the City Civil Court and renumbered as Suits Nos. 62 and 61 of Fazli l353. Whilst the suits were pending Raja Bahadur who had been impleaded to the suits along with respondent 1 died. Thereupon the appellant joined the present respondents 2 to 12 in those two suits as legal representatives of Raja Bahadur on the ground that they were in possession of different pieces of his properties under a settlement deed of 1940 and a registered will executed by him on August 28, 1942 (Ex, P. 17). In both the suits the appellant obtained decrees with costs on October 5, l944. The said decrees directed respondent 1 to pay the whole of the amount claimed by the appellant against him and respondents 2 to 12 to pay Rs. 20,000 which was the limit of guarantee executed by Raja Bahadur. All the respondents were directed to pay interest at 3 per cent. on the amount due against them. Whilst the suits were pending the goods pledged in Suit No. 62 were auctioned and the sale proceeds realised which amounted to Rs. 4,232-1-7 were given credit for whilst the Court passed the decrees in the said suits. According to the appellant an amount of Rs. 27,923-6-5 was still due on the said decrees and so in the present suit the appellant claimed from respondent 1 the whole of the said amount and from respondents 2 to 12 Rs. 20,000 with interest and costs.
(2.)Respondent 2 is the son of Raja Bahadur and respondents 6 to 9 are his minor sons. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of respondent 1. Respondent l0 is the daughter of Raja Bahadur while respondents 11 and 12 are his grand-daughters through his two daughters. Respondent 2 for himself and as guardian of his minor sons resisted the appellant's claim and contended that the Hyderabad Courts had no jurisdiction over them and therefore the decrees passed by the City Civil Court was without jurisdiction. They also alleged that they had not been served with notice of suit and had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. Respondent 1 did not resist the suit but his sons did. They alleged that they were not the legal representatives of Raja Bahadur and had been improperly added as parties to the Hyderabad suit. They joined respondents 2 and 6 to 9 in their contention that the Hyderabad Court was not a Court of competent jurisdiction and they pleaded that the foreign judgments had not been based on the merits of the case. Respondents 10 to 12 filed similar pleas.
(3.)On these pleading the learned trial Judge framed five principal issues. He held that the City Civil Court of Hyderabad had jurisdiction to try the suits and that the contesting respondents were bound by the decrees passed in the said suits. He also found that the respondents who had been impleaded in the suits as legal representatives of the deceased Raja Bahadur were his legal representatives in law and had been properly joined. The other issues framed by the trial Court in respect of the other contentions raised by the respondents were also found against them. It is, however, unnecessary to refer to those issues and the findings thereon. In the result a decree was passed in favour of the appellant for the amounts respectively claimed by it against respondent 1 and against the assets of Raja Bahadur in the hands of respondents 2 to 12 with interest at 3 per cent, per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation. The respondents were also directed to pay the costs of the appellant.
(2.)Respondent 2 is the son of Raja Bahadur and respondents 6 to 9 are his minor sons. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of respondent 1. Respondent l0 is the daughter of Raja Bahadur while respondents 11 and 12 are his grand-daughters through his two daughters. Respondent 2 for himself and as guardian of his minor sons resisted the appellant's claim and contended that the Hyderabad Courts had no jurisdiction over them and therefore the decrees passed by the City Civil Court was without jurisdiction. They also alleged that they had not been served with notice of suit and had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. Respondent 1 did not resist the suit but his sons did. They alleged that they were not the legal representatives of Raja Bahadur and had been improperly added as parties to the Hyderabad suit. They joined respondents 2 and 6 to 9 in their contention that the Hyderabad Court was not a Court of competent jurisdiction and they pleaded that the foreign judgments had not been based on the merits of the case. Respondents 10 to 12 filed similar pleas.
(3.)On these pleading the learned trial Judge framed five principal issues. He held that the City Civil Court of Hyderabad had jurisdiction to try the suits and that the contesting respondents were bound by the decrees passed in the said suits. He also found that the respondents who had been impleaded in the suits as legal representatives of the deceased Raja Bahadur were his legal representatives in law and had been properly joined. The other issues framed by the trial Court in respect of the other contentions raised by the respondents were also found against them. It is, however, unnecessary to refer to those issues and the findings thereon. In the result a decree was passed in favour of the appellant for the amounts respectively claimed by it against respondent 1 and against the assets of Raja Bahadur in the hands of respondents 2 to 12 with interest at 3 per cent, per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation. The respondents were also directed to pay the costs of the appellant.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.