NIPPANI TOBACCO CO Vs. SEKHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned District Munsiff in S. C. S. 452/58. The suit itself was for recovering from the defendant as sum of Rs. 214-66 np, being the principal amount and interest due under a promissory note dated 1-7-1958 executed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Costs and other expenses also were claimed in the suit. According to the plaintiff, the promissory-note itself was executed in respect of the amounts due from the defendant to the plaintiff for price of beedi leaves and tobacco purchased by the defendant for purposes of his trade. The plaintiff also took up the definite stand that such a debt is exempted under S. 2 [c] [vi] of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958-Kerala Act XXXI/1958.

(2.) IT is also seen that though various contentions were raised by the defendant, the only contention that was pressed during the trial, was that the defendant is entitled to relief under the provisions of Act xxxi/1958 From this, it follows that the plaintiff's case that the original debt represents the price due to the plaintiff from the defendant in respect of beedi leaves and tobacco purchased for purposes of trade by the defendant is not challenged by defendant. Therefore the question arises as to whether such a debt is one coming within the exception contained in S. 2 [c] [vi] of the Act. The learned District Munsiff also, it must be stated, has accepted the case of the plaintiff that the suit promissory-note was executed for the balance amount due from the defendant under accounts in respect of price of beedi leaves and tobacco purchased for his manufacturing purposes. But the learned District munsiff was not prepared to accept the contention of the plaintiff that such a debt comes under S. 2 [c] [vi]. IT is the further view of the learned District munsiff that the suit itself was filed not on the original debt, but on the promissory note itself and therefore, it cannot be stated that the amount due on the promissory-note comes within the exception quoted earlier.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that in as much as the suit itself is based not upon the debt, but upon the promissory-note, the reasoning adopted by the lower Court is correct.