V. KASINATHA MUDALIAR Vs. M.G. VITTAL RAO,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Miscellaneous appeal which has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore in A.S. 37 of 1952 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Tirupattur in O.S. 26 of 1950.

(2.) The relevant facts are : The plaintiff Vittal Rao is a general merchant carrying on business at Ambur. The defendant Kasinatha Mudaliar has been having transactions with him. These transactions from 7-7-1948 to 31-3-1949 showed that the defendant owed the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1117-10-6 as on 31-3-1949. It is found that the defendant has executed a pro-note for a sum of Rs. 1,000 and has sent it to the plaintiff towards the amount due to him as per the transactions. On coming to Court the plaintiff was confronted by the defendant with the plea that he could not sue on original cause of action and that the claim had become merged in the promissory note Ex. A-17.

(3.) In appeal here, I am of the same opinion as of the learned Subordinate Judge for the following reasons. On facts this pro-note does not at all pretend to show on the face of it that it was in discharge of the entire transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant on the looting of which the suit has been filed. On the other hand the pro-note had been worded as if loan has been taken from the plaintiff by the defendant on that date and this pro-note has been executed on that account.