KEMPEGOWDA Vs. M MAHALINGIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed bv the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1519 of 1963 on the file of the addl Munsiff. Mandva. The plaintiff's suit was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1334-00 inclusive of interest on the principal sum of Rs. 1.000 at the rate of 12% and notice charges a sum of Rs. 10.

(2.) The allegations contained in the plaint were that on 3-2-1960, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1 000 from the plaintiff agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the sum and as security for the said amount, executed a pronoto which has been marked as Ex. P. 1 in the case and a receipt along with it on the same day. It was stated that the defendant thereafter paid a sum of Ps.120 towards interest on 5-4-1961 and made an endorsement to that effect on the pronote Ex. P-1. It was further alleged that the defendant represented to the plaintiff that the pronote Ex.P-1 and the consideration receipt were required for the purpose of producing the same before the Land Mortgage Co-op. Society, Mandva in order to obtain a loan of Rs. 10,000 from the said society to discharge the debt clue tr the plaintiff as well as the other crediors of the defendant. But subsequently, the defendant did not return those documents; nor discharge the debt. From the enquiry which the plaintiff made he learnt that the pronote and consideration receipt have beenproduccd before the Society. The plaintiff therefore issued a notice to defendant demanding the amount lent to him. The defendant repudiated his liability.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement denied that the pronote Ex. P-1 and the receipt were executed as security for the amount borrowed. He contended that the payment of consideration and execution of the pronote were contemporaneous. He admitted that he borrowed Rs. 1,000 on executing the Promissory note and the consideration receipt. He also admitted that on 5-4-61 he paid a sum of Rs.120 towards interest. But, it was alleged by him that after taking a loan of Rs. 10,000 from the land Mortgage Co-operative Society, Mandya, he requested the plaintiff to give him the true copy of the promissory note and consideration receipt and after obtaining the same from the plaintiff he produced them before the Society As the Secretary of the Society wanted to verify the copies by comparing them with the original, the plaintiff was requested to show the pronote and receipt (though the written statement is not clear in this regard, it was submitted during the course of arguments by the counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiff was requested by the defendant) . Accordingly they were produced by the plaintiff and after due verification, returned to him. It was contended that after making necessary arrange ments, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1,290 on 4-7-1963 in full satisfaction of the pronote debt and that the plaintiff returned the pronote and consideration receipt tearing the top and removing the stamp in token of discharge. Thereafter the defendant has produced the document before the Secretary of the Society and made a report that the said debt has been discharged. It was also contended that as the suit is based on loan transaction it is barred by time.