DEV SHANKER DOLIA Vs. M H FERNANDEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition arises out of the small cause suit S. C. No. 257 of 1960 filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 900, being the balance of principal and interest alleged to be due on a promissory note dated 29th July 1955, executed by the respondents, who are husband and wife, in favour of the petitioner, for Rs. 800, payable with interest at 15 per cent per annum. The defence to the suit is that the promissory note is not supported by consideration to the full amount mentioned because the suit note is double bond. The respondents have also taken the plea that the suit is barred by limitation so far as the second respondent it concerned.

(2.) THE learned Judge who tried the suit found that the suit promissory note was supported only to the extent of Rs. 400 and that the suit was barred by limitation as against the second respondent as the endorsement made by her on 8-11-1958 was more than three years after the suit promissory note and that the petitioner would not be entitled to a decree against the second respondent. In the end he gave a decree against the first respondent alone. It is against this judgment and decree the plaintiff-petitioner has preferred this civil revision petition against both the respondents, the husband and wife.

(3.) THE learned advocate for the petitioner contented that there should be a decree against both the respondents because the endorsement made by the wife on 8-111958 was certainly binding on the husband also. In support of his contention he relied on the decision in Annamalai Pattar v. Natesa Iyer, 1914 Mad WN 792 : (AIR 1915 Mad 307 (1)), where it was observed as follows.