SANKARAN SANKARAN NAMBOORI Vs. MATHAI ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the defendant in a Small Cause Suit, S. C. S. No. 1/70 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry.

(2.) THE suit is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 295/- made up of principal Rs. 250/and interest thereon. The plaintiff's claim is based on Ext. P-2 dated 2-1-1967 purported to be a promissory note. The plaint proceeds on the footing that Ext. P2 happened to be executed in renewal of Ext. P-1 promissory note dated 7-1-1964 for Rs. 200/ -.

(3.) THE defendant contests the suit on various grounds. According to him, there is no consideration cither for Ext. P-1 or Ext. P-2. He also contends that Ext. P-2 is not a promissory note as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Explaining the circumstances under which Exts. P-1 and P-2 happened to be executed, he has stated that the plaintiff's father was a tenant in respect of 10 acres of land belonging to his illom and that his grandfather had obtained a decree for eviction of the plaintiff's father from that property in O. S. No. 218/1123 on the file of the District Court, Kottayam; at the instance of the plaintiff's father defendant filed an obstruction petition to prevent the plaintiff's father being evicted from the property. The expenses in connection with the obstruction petition had to be met by the plaintiff's father. The defendant had premised to execute a melotti along with other members of his illom in favour of the plaintiffs father and it is by way of security for the due performance of that promise that ext. P-1 promissory note was executed without any consideration whatsoever. He also contends that Ext. P-2 is not a renewal of Ext. P-1 note.