GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. K M MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which falls for determination in this appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court is whether the amount claimed by the Appellant, in a suit filed by him against the Respondent was a "debt" within the meaning of that expression as defined in clause (3) of Section 2 of the Kerala Debt Relief Act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and was, therefore, deemed to be discharged.

(2.) The Appellant's case as founded in the plaint was that the Respondent sold a cow and a calf to him for a sum of Rs. 1,600 and that the cow did not yield the quantity of milk which the Respondent had stated it would yield and was suffering from an incurable disease which was concealed from the Appellant by the Respondent. For this reason, the Appellant asked the Respondent to buy back the said cow and the calf for the same price which had been paid by the Appellant to the Respondent and thereupon the Respondent agreed to buy back the said cow and calf for a sum of Rs. 1,600. In pursuance of this agreement, the said cow and calf were returned by the Appellant to the Respondent. By his letter dated October 27, 1976, the Respondent acknowledged that he had received back the said cow and calf and assured the Appellant that he would pay the price as early as possible. In spite of repeated demands made by the Appellant, including by his advocate's letter dated September 17, 1977, the Respondent failed and neglected to pay to the Appellant the said sum of Rs. 1,600 or any part thereof though he went on promising to do so by his letters dated November 25, 1976, December 30, 1976, and May 19, 1977. The Appellant thereupon filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises, being Original Suit No. 242 of 1977, in the Court of the Munsiff, Taliparamba. In the plaint it was stated that though there was no agreement to pay any interest, the Appellant was entitled to interest by way of damages, and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum was claimed on the said sum of Rs. 1,600 from October 27, 1976. The Appellant expressly averred in the plaint that the amount claimed by him was excluded from the definition of "debt" in the said Act.

(3.) By his written statement the Respondent contended that he had only gold a pregnant cow to the Appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,500 and not Rs. 1,600 and that the cow did not suffer from any disease but by reason of the negligent manner in which the Appellant handled the cow, it gave premature birth to a calf and that the Appellant brought back the cow and the calf and left them in front of his house. The Respondent further denied his liability to pay any amount to the Appellant and alleged that he had "agreed to pay Rs. 1,500 to the plaintiff (Appellant) by his letters for nothing." He further alleged that he had paid a sum of Rs. 750 to the Appellant. He also contended that he was a "debtor" and the amount claimed from him in the said suit was a "debt" within the meaning of those expressions in the said Act and that he was entitled to the benefit of the said Act and the suit was, therefore, not maintainable.