KURAPATI VENKATA MALLAYYA AND ANOTHER versus THONDEPU RAMASWAMI AND CO. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 12-12-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
995 
of the Corporation is dismissed with costs. There 
will be a right to set-off the costs in the two appeals. 
0. A. No. 551 of 1960 diamisse,d, ezupt for inte-
rest. 0. A. No. 652 of 1960 di8mis1e,d,. 
KURAPATI VENKATA MALLAYYA 
AND -ANOTHER 
"· 
THONDEPU RAMASWAMI AND CO. 
AND ANOTHER 
(S. J. IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAo and 
J. R. MUDHOLXAR, JJ.) . 
RtuitJ<r-'--ApPoimment bg 0""'1-1/ emo -
M. Ail OID9 
fllJfrlt-lnter/eronu-Oonetll'f'tflt finding o//ad-Praclica-OOIH 
of Oiml Procedtirt, 1908 (Vo/ 1908), o_ 40, r_ 1. 
A Receiver authorised and appointed by a Court to 
collect the debts due to the plaintliF-mpondent instituted a 
suit against the appellant-firm and its alleged partnen for the 
recovery of the price of tobacco and interest thereon. The 
right of the receiver to institute a suit in hi• oW.. name was 
challenged by the appellant. Thereupon the respondent-firm 
amended the plaint by dcocribing the plaintifl' 81 "M/1. T. R. 
& Co., represented by I. Surayanarayana Garu receiver appoin-
kd in 0.S. 275 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsift"'1 
Court, Guntur." 
The appellant-firm 
amended the written statement 
and contended that the amendment of the plaint was time-
barred, that it did not cure the initial defect in the suit and 
that consequently, die suit was barred by limitation. The 
trial court diomlssed the wit on the ground that Suryanarayana 
was not entitled to institute a suit in his capacity 81 Receiver, 
that the amendment of the plaint was beyond time and that 
the suit wao therefore time bam:d. On appeal the High 
1962 
N""""41 1--
Co. LU. Col'""" 
v. 
Lif•l--
eor,.. of r.m. 
HillrJ"""'411, /. 
1962 
D1t1mbn, IZ. 
1961 -
K.,apat; Vlllkata 
Mlll/1J17• 
v. 
1lM<ilpu Ramaswami 
"""Co. 
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963) SUPP. 
Court held that the Receiver waa entitled to institute the suit, 
that at the most there was a misdescription of the plainti1f-
6:1"m in the cause title of the suit which could be corrected any 
time, that consequently the suit was within time and that the 
plainti!Fwaa entitled to a decree with interest from the date of 
delivery of the goods till realization. 
Held, 
that a Receiver invested with full powers to 
administer the property which is cuatodia /egia or who is 
expressly authorised by the court to institute a suit for collection 
of the assets is entitled to institute a suit in his own name 
provided he does 
so in his capacity as a Receiver. His 
function cannot be limited merely to the preservation of the 
property and it is open to a court, if occa'ion demands, to 
confer upon him the power to 
take such steps including 
instituting suits in the i11terest of the parties themselves. The 
suit as originally instituted, was thus perfectly competent. 
The High Court rightly held, that where there is a case 
of misdescrlption of parties it is open to the court to allow an 
amendment of the plaint at any time and the question of 
limitation would not arise in such a case. 
Jagat Tarini Dasi v. Naba Gopal Ohalci (1907) r:L. R. 34 
Cal. 305, relied on. 
Held, further that this court does not interfere with the 
concurrent findings of the courts below on a pure question of 
fact, unless there are exceptional circumstances or unusual 
reasons which induce it to re-examine the entire evidence. 
Srimati Bibhabali Delli v. Kumar Ramendra Narayan 
Roy, (1946) L. R. 73 I. A. 246 and Sriniwaa Ram Kumar v. 
MaliabirPraaad, [1951] S. C.R. 277,referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE jURJSDIOTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 339/60. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
November 17, 1955, of the Andhra Pradesh High 
Court in A. S. No. 51/1951. 
A. Ranganadham Ohetty, A. V. Rangam, A. 
VedavaUl and K. R. Ohaudhri, for the appellants. 
R. Gannpathy Iyer, R. 'l'hiagarajan and G. 
Gapalakrishnan, for the respondent No. 1. 
1962. December 12. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
• 
,'l-
-I 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
997 
MuDHOLKAR, J. This is an appeal by a certi• 
ficate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh 
under Art. 133 (l) (a) of the Constitution. 
The relevant facts are these : 
The plaintiff-respondent Ramaswamy & Co. 
who carry on business in tobacco at Guntur instituted 
a suit against the appellant-firm which also carries 
on similar business at that place and its alleged part· 
ners Kurapati Venkata Mallayya and 
Mittapalli 
Abbayya, for the recovery of the price of 112 bales 
of DB tobacco strips (hereafter referred to as

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.