VAITHIANATHA PILLAI Vs. SHEIK ABDUL MAJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Second Appeals arise out of two suits. O.S. No. 294 of 1978 and O.S. No. 47 of 1978 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, but filed by the same plaintiff-appellant against the same defendant-respondent, the former being for recovery of Rs. 3000/- with interest due under promissory note dated 9.3.1975 and the latter being for recovery of Rs. 4,500/- with interest due under promissory note dated 21.2.1975. Both the promissory notes were executed by the said defendant. Both the suits were not tried together, though they are connected, In both the suits, the relevant suit promissory note was marked as Ex. A1.

(2.) THE execution of the promissory notes was admitted, but the only defence is failure of consideration. According to the defendant, the Plaintiff executed the sale deed Ex. B1 dated 17.2.1975, marked so in both the suits, whereby the plaintiff sold a land 5 Kuzhies for Rs. 15,000/- But, the defendant paid towards sale consideration only Rs. 7000/- and for the balance sale consideration due, the defendant executed the abovesaid two promissory notes. Further according to the defendant, 2 Kuzhies out of the abovesaid 5 Kuzhies of the said land were acquired by the Government and hence the promissory notes are without consideration. In both the suits, the same land acquisition Notification was marked as Ex. B2 dated 10.9.1974. Though the abovesaid Ex. B1 sale deed actually shows that the sale consideration is Rs. 4000/- only, according to the defendant, the real sale consideration was Rs. 15,000/-. Both the promissory notes actually recite that the consideration for the promissory notes was paid in cash to the defendant for the latter's family and business expenses.

(3.) THEREFORE, in both the proceedings the Judgments and decrees of the lower appellate court are set aside and that of the trial court are restored and the second appeals are accordingly allowed with costs throughout.