High Courts(1896) 11 MAD CK 0015

Narasinga Pillai vs Muthusami Naickar

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 November 1896 · Citation: (1897) 7 MLJ 218

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 175 words
1.

We cannot accept the contention that the bond was executed to Nizamudeen as agent alone, for he was entitled to a portion of the rent himself

as a co-sharer and a contract with him by the defendant for consideration appearing on the document, e.g. the giving of time for payment is valid

and binding even though given at a time when his authority to act as agent for his co-sharers had in fact been determined. No notice of such

determination is alleged to have been given to defendant who is protected by Section 208; Contract Act, from any possible claim by the other co-

sharers for the rent due to them.

2.

The plaintiff as the assignee of the bond is therefore entitled to recover the amount due.

3.

We must set aside the decree of the District Munsif and decree the amount sued for with costs and interest at six per cent, per annum from the

date of the plaint till date of payment. Defendant must pay the costs in this Court also.