AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 186 wordsAyling, J.—In this case the plaintiff (respondent) sued on a promissory note as the assignee of the widow of the promissee. He produced no
succession certificate. The Subordinate Judge, gave him a decree directing at the same time that it should not be executed without filing a
certificate.
It is argued on behalf of the petitioner (2nd defendant) that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass such a decree in view of Section 4 of the
Succession Certificate Act. See also Santaji Khanderao v. Ravji 15 B. 105. I think this contention must prevail. The plaintiff can stand in no better
position than his assignor. Vide Karuppasami v. Pichu 15 M. 419 : 2 M.L.J. 116. The decree was illegal. The proper course in such cases is
indicated in Manasing v. Ahmad Kunhi 17 M. 14. The plaintiff should be allowed a reasonable time to file succession certificate : failing which his
suit would be liable to dismissal.
The decree of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and he is directed to restore the suit to file and dispose of it according to law.