C K KUPPURAMULU Vs. A VARADARAJULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is the petitioner. The suit is to recover the amount due under the promissory note dated 25-7-1968 executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. The execution of the said promissory note is substantially admitted, but what is pleaded in the written statement is that by a subsequent agreement, the plaintiff undertook to account for the rents collected by him and also agreed to take into account the probable rent for the portion in his occupation, and if that is taken into account, nothing will be recoverable under the suit promissory note.

(2.) THE plaintiff and the defendant have married sisters and the wives of the plaintiff and defendant lost their mother while they were young. While the plaintiff's wife was very young the case of the defendant is, that the plaintiff's wife was brought up by the defendant's wife that for the marriage several presents were given by the defendant and his wife, that for the confinement of the plaintiff's wife defendant and his wife spent moneys that the eldest child of the plaintiff is a polio patient that for the medical expenses considerable amounts were spent and if these amounts were taken into account, it will be found that the defendant had spent more than Rs. 4,500 that after the father-in-law of the plaintiff and defendant died on 7-5-1970, misunderstandings arose and it was agreed that the defendant need not pay the sum due under the promissory note, now sued on to which the plaintiff agreed, but contrary to the said arrangement the present suit is filed. The other defenses put forward are that the promissory note is barred by limitation, and that in any event the promissory note was executed at Erode and not at Coimbatore and that the court in Coimbatore has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(3.) WHEN the suit came up for trial the defendant sought to lead oral evidence regarding the subsequent arrangements pleaded in the written statement. The plaintiff objected to the evidence relating to the subsequent oral evidence on the ground that Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act would be a bar amounting to a subsequent oral agreement varying the terms of the written document. viz. , the promissory note, and that such evidence should be excluded. The learned subordinate Judge upheld the objection and refused to allow the defendant to lead oral evidence and the subsequent agreement pleaded in the written statement and also the equitable set off. Against the said order of the learned Subordinate Judge the present revision petition the filed.