SUBBARAYA MUDALIAR Vs. NARAYANASWAMI MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.915 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif of Gingee. A suit was filed by the first respondent-plaintiff against the first defendant-petitioner who is the Court auction-purchaser of the property and also against the morgagors, defendants 2 to 4, for recovery of a sum of Rs.570 due on a mortgage. The revision petitioner-s contentions are: (1) that he has paid a sum of Rs.409 (2) that he has also given to the plaintiff 21 baps of cement valued at Rs.345 and the value of the cement has to be given credit to and (3) that the first defendant is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. The trial Court rejected all these contentions and decreed the suit in full and in appeal the decree was confirmed.

(2.) Mr. Kadiravan, learned Counsel appearing Cor the revision petitioner invited my attention to the fact that the plaintiff has deposed in Court that a sum of Rs.500 has been paid and that only a sum of Rs.200 has been endorsed under Ex.A-2. Rut the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent says that this statement must be a mistake or the statement must Have been mistakenly recorded. This contention of the first respondent appears to be well-founded, because a suggestion is thrown to the plaintiff in the box that the payment of Rs.200 and Rs.409 should be given credit to from out ot the princi-pal amount thereby indicating that only a sum of Rs.200 and Rs.409 have been paid. The payment of Rs.409 and Rs.200 have been given credit to by the court below.

(3.) As regard the contention that he has delivered 23 bags of cement valued at Rs.345, there is absolutely no evidence. Both the courts concurrently found that this payment is not true.