https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301963 The court held that the suit brought by minor plaintiffs and their mother was maintainable as the mother was the holder of the promissory note and could provide a lawful discharge. The court also found that consideration for the promissory note was established through the grandfather of the minor plaintiffs. Additionally, the court rejected the argument of misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of action, stating that the suit was properly brought by the true owners based on the promissory note. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the monies realized in execution were directed to the plaintiffs, with the mother providing a discharge as the note holder. en-us Tue, 06 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Apr 2022 17:30:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301963 The court held that the suit brought by minor plaintiffs and their mother was maintainable as the mother was the holder of the promissory note and could provide a lawful discharge. The court also found that consideration for the promissory note was established through the grandfather of the minor plaintiffs. Additionally, the court rejected the argument of misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of action, stating that the suit was properly brought by the true owners based on the promissory note. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the monies realized in execution were directed to the plaintiffs, with the mother providing a discharge as the note holder. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301963