BOBBA SATYANARAYANA Vs. MADDINENI SREE RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Munsifs Court, Eluru, dated 25/06/1958 in S. C. S. 122/58 on the file of the said Court.

(2.) The suit out of which this revision has arisen, was filed in the Court below by the respondent in this revision, claiming to recover a sum of Rs. 189.49 nP. dup to him by way of a handlom given by him to the petitioner on 6-5-1957. the handlom itself being in respect of a sum of Rs. 181.00 and the rest of the amount claimed, represents interest thereon.

(3.) The facts of the case may be briefly noticed:- The respondent was a teacher in the Board High School, Kowali, while the present petitioner is the Headmaster of that High School. It is claimed in the plaint that the petitioner was in the habit of taking handloans from him (respondent) almost every month, repaying the same as and when he received his salary. The respondent could not disregard the request of the petitioner, the former being a subordinate of the latter. On 9-5-1957, the day on which the salary for the month of April Was due to be disbursed, the petitioner requested the respondent to lend him Rs. 181.00 which the plaintiff did by way of allowing the petitioner to retain a sum of Rs. 104.00, due to one Prakasarao, a teacher, as his salary, and in respect whereof a pay order was executed by the said Prakasarao in favour of the respondent, and the remaining amount represented the salary of the respondent himself, for the month of April, which the respondent did not draw, but allowed the Headmaster, the petitioner, to keep with him instead of disbursing it. Out of the sum of Rs. 184.00 which the Petitioner was said to have so retained in his hands, Rs. 3A alone were paid to the respondent, the balance of Rs. 181.00 having been kept by the petitioner for his own use. The plaint further averred that on 9-5-1957 the plaintiff made an entry in his account book about the handloan. Subsequently, it is claimed, that as the Payment was not made and the respondent was angious to have some thing in writing as evidence of the handloan, he wanted the petitioner to execute a promissory note, and, in fact, a Promissory note was prepared by one Bhaskara Rao, another co-teacher examined as P. W. 2, for a sum of Rs 200/-, so that, the amount may represent a round figure, the balance of Rs. 19.00having been intended to be paid in cash to the plaintiff as a further loan. The petitioner, however, put off signing and refused to sign the promissory note. The plaint further alleged that the respondent had raised a dispute about the amount due to him before at least three respectable mediators, whose names were mentioned in the plaint, besides the complaint he made to the District Educational Officer. It is further alleged in the plaint that there are differences between the petitioner and the respondent on account of the respondents daughter having been detained by the petitioner for want of requisite marks.