9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appointment of trustee under Section 73 of Trusts Act. 2. Interpretation of legal representative under Order 22, Civil P.C. 3. Right of the plaintiff to bring a suit based on a promissory note. 4. Construction of the promissory note and determination of the payee. 5. Validity of payment made to a third party under Section 78 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. Costs and execution of the decree under Debt Conciliation Act. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves the appointment of a trustee under Section 73 of the Trusts Act. The issue arises regarding the nomination of a successor trustee after the death of the last surviving trustee. The court clarifies that the legal representative of the trustee in his personal capacity, not qua trustee, can nominate the successor. The court holds that the present respondent has been legally appointed as the trustee, and the devolution of trust property has taken place as per Section 75 of the Trusts Act. 2. The interpretation of the legal representative under Order 22, Civil P.C. is discussed. The court examines the definition of a legal representative and holds that for the purposes of a suit, the legal representative is the successor in office on whom the trust property devolves. The court emphasizes the importance of making sense of legislation and concludes that the respondent has been properly brought on record as the legal representative. 3. The judgment addresses the right of the plaintiff to bring a suit based on a promissory note. The court analyzes the promissory note and determines the payees mentioned in the document. The court examines past rulings and establishes that a trustee can sustain a suit when named as a payee in a promissory note. The court affirms that the plaintiff, being named in the promissory note, has the right to bring the suit. 4. The construction of the promissory note and the identification of the payee are crucial aspects of the judgment. The court delves into the wording of the promissory note to ascertain the payees and clarifies that the plaintiff is indeed a payee based on the document's language. The court draws parallels with previous legal precedents to support its conclusion regarding the plaintiff's right to sue. 5. The validity of a payment made to a third party under Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is examined. The court determines that a payment to a person other than the holder of the instrument does not discharge the maker unless accepted by the payee. The court rules that the payment made by the defendants to a third party did not discharge them, as the plaintiff did not accept the payment. 6. Lastly, the judgment discusses costs and the execution of the decree under the Debt Conciliation Act. The court issues a certificate under Section 15(1) of the Act, directing the parties to bear their own costs. The court specifies that the decree shall not be executed unless an agreement under Section 12 of the Act is satisfied or ceases to subsist. Additionally, the court addresses a cross-objection regarding costs disallowed due to a certificate issued by the Debt Conciliation Board, ultimately dismissing the cross-objection and directing parties to bear their own costs.
|
