TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules respondent not personally liable due to minority, allows decree against deceased mother's assets.</h1> <h3>Ranjitsingh Versus Mt. Narmadi</h3> The court confirmed the respondent's minority at the time of executing the promissory note, holding that she was not personally bound by the contract but ... - Issues:Recovery of debt on a promissory note from a minor respondent | Liability of respondent as legal representative of deceased mother | Entitlement of plaintiff to a decree against assets of deceased mother in possession of respondentAnalysis:The second appeal involved a suit for debt recovery on a promissory note executed by the respondent and her deceased mother. The lower courts dismissed the suit, citing the respondent's minority at the time of execution. The appellant argued that the respondent was of legal age when signing the note or should be liable for the assets inherited from her mother. However, the court confirmed the respondent's minority and clarified that she was not a contracting party but a witness to her mother's contract, thus not personally bound by it.Regarding the liability issue, the appellant sought a decree against the assets of the deceased mother in the respondent's possession. The court noted the appellant's claim of the respondent being the heir and joined issue on this point. The court analyzed the legal definition of a legal representative, emphasizing that possession of assets is not a prerequisite for liability. Citing legal precedents, the court clarified that a decree may be passed against a legal representative without proof of assets, focusing on the right to sue surviving against the representative.The court addressed the argument that determination of assets should be left to execution, not during the suit. It referred to conflicting opinions from other high courts but emphasized that under Civil Procedure Code, a decree against a legal representative can be passed without proof of assets. The court concluded that the appellant was entitled to relief against any assets of the deceased mother in the respondent's possession, passing a decree accordingly.Lastly, the court addressed costs, denying the appellant costs from the lower courts due to a false argument and granting only half the costs of the appeal. The judgment highlighted the appellant's right to relief based on admitted facts and legal entitlement, ensuring justice by granting a decree against any assets of the deceased mother held by the respondent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
