LexTHE ANDHRA BANK LTD. versus R. SRINIVASAN AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
391
"" ~ the High Court rightly
answered the question
against the assessee Company.
•
In the result, the appeals fail, and are dis-
missed with costs.
Appeals dism iMed.
THE ANDHRA BANK LTD.
v.
R. SRINIVASAN AND OTHERS.
(P. B. GA.TENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO and
·
M. HmAYATULLAH, JJ.)
Legal Represenfative-~-J.lot resident u,ithin court'8 jurisdic ..
•
tion and not appearing-Judgment, if uinding-Pri,.ate Interna-
tional
Law-Applicahility-Degatees
under will-If
legal
representati'.ves of deceased defendant-'}Jstate', if means uiliole
estate-Code of
Civil
Procedure,
1908 (A.ct V
of 1908),
8.2 (11).
During the pendency of two connected suits for recovery
of money filed by the appellant in the Hyderabad Court one of
the respondents died and his som, daughters and grand daugh-
ters were joined in the suits as his legal representatives as
>,
holding different pieces of his property under a deed of settle-
ment and a registered will executed by him. The suits '"''ere
decreed by the said court but as the decretal money could not
he realised in full the appellant filed the present suit for the
balance in the Madras High Court on the basis of the judg-
ments of the Hyderabad Court
At the time of filing, the
previous suits \Vere comi:-etent and within the jurisdiction of the
Hyderabad Court as the deceased respondent was a resident of
'
Hyderabad but after his death at the relevant time his legal
representatives v.•ere not resident5 of Hyderabad.
The resjJon~
dents contended infer
alia that they did not submit to the
jurisdiction of the Hyderabad Court as it had no jurisdiction
over them and the foreign judgments of that ·Court \Vere not
binding on them.
The high Court held that under the rule of
private international law all personal actions must be filed in
the courts of the country where the defendant resided and as
the legal representatives were non-residents of Hyderabad the
... ,.
decrees passed against them were invalid.
Held, that the rule of private international la\V could not
be applied to a case where the suit as initially filed was compe-
tent and the court before whiCb it was filed was competent to
1961
-Karanpura
Dtvelopment Co. 1
Ltd.
v.
The Commissioner
of lncomr•tax,
fVrst
BengtJ.[
l!ida,yatullah ].
1961
Au:ust 31.
•
JS61
Th, . .fndhra Bank
I.rd.
v.
R. Sri1,i1·•,c111
•
3!l2
SGPREllfE COVRT REPORTS
[l!lli2J
try it. If during the pendenr.y of the suit the defendant died
and hi-; non·rec;i<lent legal representatives \\'Cr(' brought on the
record to defend the suic on his behalf to the extent of the
assets of the decea~ed held hy thctn, the jurisdiction of the court
c011tinued
unaffect("d
a11d tlir
competence of thr-
suit as
or-iginallr filrd remaine•I unirnpaircd.
Srmlar G1ml11al Singh '" Tl" Raja of Faridkot•, (1894)
I .. R. 211. A. Iii, Tra'"'" v. l!e/l,y ,1951, P. 246, Du11n• '"
Saban [1955] P. Jill, )lountbattm v. Jfou11//,atbn, ~1959j P. 43,
Dulle• v. Vidln, I 1951 r I Ch. 842, Sc/,;/,_</,y '" ll'eatinholz,
11870) LR. 6 Q. ll. 15'1 and Ema11ue/ '" Symon, 19081 I K.B.
JO?, r("ferred to.
Kanrhamalai Pother'" Ry. Shahaji Rajah Saheb, (1916)
1.1..R. 5'J Mad. 461 and Erara ,. Sidramappo Pa .. are ( 1897)
I.LR. 21 Born. 424, not applicable.
Under s. 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Precedure the clause
'a P'rson \\·ho in la\\· reprt>scnts the e~tate of a deceased person,
1nust inrlude legatees under \.\'ills and tr.at "Estate" ce:.unot
necessarily n1ean the \Vliole of the estate .
.Yate.oa S'IS/riga/ '" Alam,/u Ar.hi, (19'JO) I M. LJ. 4i6,
disappr01ed.
C1nL APPELi.ATE JvmsmcTI0:-1 : Civil Appeal
Ko. f>08of1958.
Appeal fr«m th<' jmlgmcnt and decree tlatecl
.Tuh·27, l!l51,ofthc l\faclrn~ Hirrh Court in A.S.
Xos. l'i2 and l\H of l\l47.
·
A. Rrrngmwll1am Chelty, C. F. Xarasirnhmo,
A, J'. Rangam ancl T. 8at11c111arayar1a, for the appellant.
A. I'. Viswanatha Sastri and S. Venk<1lf1krishrirrn,
for re~pondents Xos. I to 3.
R. Ganapathy l!fe" ancl T. K. Smulrim Ramcm,
for respondents X 08. ;i to 9.
R. Gariapath11 Iyer,
Thiaga.rajan
and R. G.
r:v11alakrismum. for respondents X os. 11 and I 2.
1961. August 31. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
GAJKSDHAGADKAH, J.-This appeal has been
brought to this Court with a certificatn issued Ly
the Madras High Court under Art. 133(1}(a) of the
Constitution and it arises out of a suit (0.8.No. 83
of 1945) filed by the appellant the AnExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.