ANUMOLU TIRUPATIRAYOLU Vs. KALURI VENKATA SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the decree-holder in O. S. No. 120 of 1931 against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Guntur scaling down the decree debt in a manner which the appellant considers to be unduly favourable to the judgment-debtor.

(2.) The point in dispute between the parties is a simple one. A promissory note was executed in renewal of two earlier promissory notes, Exs. P-1 and P -2, in which a further sum of Rs. 6000/- was advanced, making a total of Rs. 15000/- due by defendants l and 2 and one P. Prakasa Rao. On 12th March 1931 an arrangement was entered into between the creditor and the debtors whereby Prakasa Rao undertook half the liability under the note, which amount-ed to Rs. 9700/-, and for that amount he executed a mortgage bond in favour of the creditor. The defendants executed the suit promissory note for the Other Rs. 9700/-. The question arising in this appeal is whether we must regard the splitting up of the old debt on 12th Match 1931 as a creation of two new debts, in which case 12th March 1931 will be the earliest date to which the judgmentdebtors would be entitled to go back to reopen the decree debt, or we must regard the two new debts as continuations of the old one. A third alternative suggested was that the Rs. 9700/- paid by Prakasa Rao should be regarded as a partial discharge of the debt then existing. In the two last cases, the judgment-debtors would be entitled to go back to 10th May 1925, the date of execution of EX. P- 1, the original promissory note.

(3.) We consider that this question is settled by authority. In Ramasubbier v. Rama Aiyar, 1941-1 M. L. J. 39 : (A. I. R. (28) 1941 Mad. 356), there was a division in the family of this creditors and the debt divided between the two members of the family in unequal shares, the debtors executing fresh promissory notes in favour of the two members of the family. Patanjali Sastri J. in the judgment delivered by him on behalf of the Bench stated :