REDDI SURYAKANTAM Vs. YERRA VEERASWAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the plaintiff challenges the dismissal of his suit under the judgment and decree in OS No.289 of 1983 dated 18-11-1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Kakinada. The suit claim is for recovery of Rs.32,209/- on the foot of a promissory note in Ex.Al dated 2 12-1974 for Rs. 10,000/- borrowed by the defendant which was agreed to be repaid on demand with interest at Rs.1.40 ps., per month on yearly compound. Of the said amount, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on 18-11-1977 and Rs.500/- on 6-10-1980 by making due endorsements on the reverse of the pronote. Later though the defendant addressed a letter dated 30-1-1983 in Ex.A6 requesting time for payment till March, 1983, the amount was not paid. It was claimed that the defendant is a business man doing business in the manufacture of tiles and is an income tax assessee and thus not entitled to the benefits of Act 4 of 1938 or Act 7 of 1977. The demands made by the plaintiff remained unheeded. Hence the suit.

(2.) In the written statement, the defendant admitted the execution of the pronote and the part payments made on 18-11-1977 and 6-10-1980. However, he denied that he is a businessman, an income tax assessee, and he is not entitled to the benefit of Act 4 of 1938. It was claimed that he is an agriculturist owning Ac. 13.90 cents in Kolamuru village of Bhimvaram Taluk doing personal cultivation and entitled to the benefit under the said Acts. It was further claimed that the plaintiff was entitled to only Rs. 17,588.66 and not the amount as claimed on the date of filing of the suit and in fact he had already deposited Rs. 19,684.66, which is excess.

(3.) On these varied pleadings, the lower Court has framed the issues mainly on the question, whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits under Act 4 of 1938 for scaling down the interest.