High Courts

Rebala Pera Reddi vs Mohamed Abdul Hussain Sahib Garu

Madras High Court · Decided on 25 October 1891 · Citation: (1896) 6 MLJ 702

Ask AI about this case

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

4 paragraphs · 110 words
1.

It is argued that the debt is claimed by the son by right of survivorship and that the case is not within the scope of the Certificate Act. The act

clearly contemplates only cases of succession and our attention is also drawn to Act V of 1881, Section 4. But the promissory note sued on stands

in the name of the father. There is-nothing on the record to show that the debt sued for was a joint family debt. The question therefore does not

arise upon the face of the documents or upon the pleadings in the case. We must decline to interfere and dismiss the petition with costs.