SANKARA PILLAI Vs. USMAN SETTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The suit was on the basis of a pro note Ext. A executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 16-10-1950. The main contentions raised by the defendant were that the note was not supported by consideration, that the note was executed under coercion and intimidation by the defendant and that subsequent to the execution of the note, it was materially altered by the plaintiff by affixing three one Anna Stamps so as to make that instrument a valid one.

(2.) The lower court on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the note was supported by consideration, that there was no evidence to show that the note was executed under a coercion or intimidation, or to show that there was material alteration of the note, and decreed the suit.

(3.) In this appeal counsel for the appellant challenges the correctness of the findings of the lower court. He contended that the note was not supported by consideration because there was no ready cash payment as stated in the pro note. He submitted that the note was executed under the following circumstances: The defendant was a salesman of the Planters Company Limited Coonoor. One firm called Abdulla Abubaker Settu & Sons who were tea merchants in Trivandrum used to purchase tea from the Planters Company Ltd. Certain consignments of tea to Abdulla Abubaker Settu & Sons got damaged during the transit by rail and they were claiming damages on that account from Planters Company Ltd. The Company sent its chief representative to Trivandrum on 27-7-1950. That gentleman was satisfied that the tea had become damaged and he therefore advised the sale of it at a reduced price and promised that he would recommend to Planters Company Ltd., to compensate Abdulla Abubaker Settu & Sons for their loss. In pursuance of that the tea was as a matter of fact, sold and an amount of Rs. 4000/- odd was realised. There still remained a balance and Abdulla Abubaker Settu & Sons claimed that amount from Planters Company Ltd. But there was no response from it. The defendant being the sale agent was persuaded to execute a note to the plaintiff in consideration of the loss which Abdulla Abubaker Settu & Sons sustained on account of the damage caused to the goods.