AMARAVATHI AMMAL Vs. PERIYANAYAGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition comes before us, as Venkatadri, J.; thought there was divergence of authority on a certain point relevant to the case.

(2.) THE petitioner had executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent who assigned it to a third party. In the suit instituted by the assignee of the promissory note, the petitioner challenged the respondent who figured as a witness to take oath and deny that the debt under the promissory note had been discharged. The respondent took oath to that effect which the Court naturally accepted, with the result the suit was decreed. The present Suit, out of which the Civil Revision Petition arises, has been instituted by the petitioner against the respondent to recover from him the amount covered by the earlier decree. The suit was resisted on the ground that it was barred by res judicata, in view of the oath taken in the previous proceeding. This ground was accepted and the suit was dismissed. When the Civil Revision Petition came before Venkatadri, J., in the first instance, his attention was invited to Keshava v. Rudran, I.L.R. (1882) Mad. 259, Sanyasi Baritya v. Arteswaro, (1913) 24 M.L.J. 312 :, I.L.R. (1913) Mad. 287, and Ranganatha Iyer v. Jayavelu Mudaliar : AIR1940Mad627 , and in view of the conflict of decision on the question of res judicata, he thought it desirable that the question should be decided by a Division Bench.

(3.) BENSON , J., and Sundara Aiyar, J., in Sanyasi Baritya v. Arteswaro : (1913)24MLJ321 , however took a different view: