Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Chippagiri Nagireddi vs Venkadari Somappa on 6 October, 1942

Kurapati Radhakrishna And Anr. vs Kurapati Satyanarayana And Ors. on 23 April, 1948

43. The argument of the learned advocate for the respondents is that as, in fact, defendants 2 and 3 were managing the 'family property and business, and as the amount of advance was applied for discharge of a binding debt the decree must be treated to be a decree against defendants 2 and 3 in a representative capacity as managers of the joint family, but we are unable to accept this contention. As pointed out in the later Full Bench of five Judges in Nagireddi v. Somappa (1942) 2 M.L.J. 691 : I.L.R. 1943 Mad. 248, if a manager who is not the father was sued on a contract entered into by him and the decree contains no direction that it should be executed against the family property the decree is only a personal decree and not against the manager. The undertaking in the contract to secure the concurrence of the mother and to get a conveyance also from her on behalf of the minors is an indication that the contract was not entered into in a representative capacity. We are therefore unable to agree with the learned District Judge that the decree was obtained against defendants 2 and 3 as managers of the family. In this view, it becomes unnecessary to consider the correctness of the decision of the Full Bench of three Judges in Venkatanarayana Somaraju (1937) a M.L.J. 251 : I.L.R. 1937 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Smt. Savita Thakur And Ors. vs State Bank Of India And Ors. on 11 May, 1999

In Chippagiri Nagireddi v. Venkadari Somappa, AIR 1943 Mad 1, a Full Bench consisting of nine judges of the Madras High Court held that where the manager of a joint Hindu family who does not happen to be the father also is sued on a negotiable instrument such as a promissory note executed by him in his personal capacity and the decree contains no direction that it shall be executed out of family property, the manager alone is liable to satisfy the decree. The learned judges also specifically clarified that they are not concerned with the application of the pious obligation rule in such execution proceedings, because the manager of the family in that case was not the father and that they were concerned only with a case in which the manager of a joint Hindu family and not the father is sued and that too on a negotiable instrument executed by him in his personal capacity.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - D Raju - Full Document

Bujhawan Kuer And Ors. vs Hanuman Rai And Ors. on 29 October, 1952

It is unnecessary to cite more authorities on the point, and with respect I have to state that the decision 'in -- 'Chippagiri Nagireddi v. Venkadari Somappa', A. I. R. 1943 Mad. 1 (F. B.) (O) has no bearing on the facts of this present case, and the question of estoppel as raised by the learned Counsel Mr. Mehdi Imam does not at all arise in this case. The findings, as already pointed out, are that the loan was contracted for family necessity, that the two brothers after the death of Kishun were living joint and that with some ulterior motive the two brothers had got themselves separately recorded as members of the Society. I do not understand how estoppel can be pleaded against the respondents. The entire facts and circumstances have to be looked into, and the facts unmistakably go to show that Bishun had incurred the loan as the karta of the family and for paying off previous mortgage bonds executed by all the three brothers. Undoubtedly, therefore, it was a loan contracted for family necessity, and when the clear finding of fact is that there was no separation in the family, the other members of the family must be bound by the actions of Bishun.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Krishnamoorthy Padayachi (Died), ... vs Vadivel Chettiar (Died), Radha, ... on 1 January, 2006

12. Reliance is also placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chippagiri Nagireddi v. Venkadari Somappa reported in A.I.R. (30) 1943 Madras 1, to show that in case of Hindu Law, when the Manager other than the father sued on a promissory note executed by him in his personal capacity, this Court has held that the Manager alone is liable to satisfy the decree.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Bethanasami Naidu vs Minor Kannan Alias Sanjeevi Naidu And ... on 25 November, 1942

Reference has been made to a dictum of Venkataramana Rao, J., in his judgment in the Full Bench case in Venkatanarayana v. Somaraju (1937) 2 M.L.J. 251 88o (F.B.)I.L.R (1937) Mad, which is said to be incorrect in view of the later Full Bench case in Nagireddi v. Somappa (1942) 2 M.L.J. 691 (F.B.), but it is not necessary to say this; for what Venkataramana Rao, J., said was, Where the suit relates to a joint family property and the person sued is either the father or the eldest member, the accredited head of the family, it must be presumed that he was sued as representing his family....
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

K. Swaminatha Iyer And Anr. vs K.G. Krishnaswami Iyer And Ors. on 23 August, 1946

It has been held that where a suit is instituted on a promissory note, it is prima facie a personal claim and the defendant alone is liable to satisfy the decree unless it directs that it is to be paid out of family, property, although the debt was in fact incurred for family necessity (Nagireddi v. Somappa (1942) 2 M.L.J. 691 : I.L.R. 1943 Mad. 248 (F.B.)). But the distinction can have no meaning where the suit is brought by the payee against the maker and the decree is sought to be enforced against the judgment debtor's son to the extent of his interest in the family property. For, it is not by reason of the father having represented the son in the suit that the son's interest is bound and passes at the execution sale but by reason of his pious obligation to pay his father's personal debt and the correlative power of the latter to sell family property including the son's share for the discharge of such debts, a power which the Court in execution exercises for the benefit of the judgment-creditor. This was recognised in the last mentioned case where the Court emphasised that it was not concerned with the application of the pious obligation rule in execution proceedings because the manager of the family there was not the father. It is not the form of the decree or the frame of the suit but the nature of the debt that determines the son's liability. Jf.it is neither illegal nor immoral, then all that the son can claim for the protection of his interest is an opportunity to show that the debt for which the decree was passed was not binding on him. As the plaintiffs have had such opportunity in these proceedings but have failed to prove that the debt due to the panic was not binding on them, they cannot claim that the sale of the suit house is invalid as against them.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1