CHEKKERA PONNAMMA Vs. A S THAMMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendants. They were defendants in O. S. No. 201 of 1966 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Virajpet. They are the legal representatives of one Chekkara Machayya (Machayya). Machayya died on 12-12-1961. Respondent Thammayya was the plaintiff in the suit. He had claimed a money decree against the defendants. By his judgment dt. 28-2-1973 the learned Munsiff had dismissed the the suit. In the appeal preferred by Thammayya in R.A.No. 14 of 1973 the learned Civil Judge, Coorg, Mercara, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Munsiff, and granted a decree as prayed for with costs, with a direction that the decre'al amount should be realised from the assets of Machayya in the hands of the defendants. It is this judgment and decree that is under challenge.

(2.) Thammayya's case has been that in respect of four motor vehicles Machayya had entered into Hire Purchase agreements with a concern called Finance Corporation, Bangalore, of which the sole proprietor was a certain Sirdan Labsingh Kohh (hereinafter called the Corporation); that under the terms and conditions of those Hire purchase agreements he, Machayya, bad to pay a certain sum of money to the Corporation; that, he having failed to pay the money in accordance with the terms and conditions, the Corporation had demanded of him, the plaintiff, who was the guarantor, to pay the same on behalf of Machayya; that, having negotiated with the Corporation, he, the plaintiff, had got the liability reduced to Rs. 4,000 and that in full satisfaction of the debt to the Corporation he had paid Rs. 4350; that, in the circumstances, the defendants were liable to reimburse him to that extent; that they the defendants, had failed to do so and, therefore, he had brought the said suit claiming the principal amount with interest and court costs.

(3.) The contentions taken up by the defendants were that Machayya was not liable in any sum to the Corporation by virtue of the Hire purchase agreements said to have been entered into by him with the Corporation; that the Corporation, previous to the alleged settlement of accounts said to have been arrived at with the Corporation by Thammayya, had taken away their four vehicles; that it was not known what they had done with those four vehicles and how much money had been realised; that if the value of those four vehicles were adjusted to the loan outstanding, if any, no amount will be due; that the said four vehicles were worth more than Rs. 60,000; that the proprietor of ths Corporation and the plaintiff Thammayya were good friends, had colluded together, and had exploited the helplessness of the legal representatives of Machayya; and that, in the circumstances, they being not liable to pay any money as claimed, the suit should be dismissed with their costs.