JANGA RAMAKRISHNA REDDI Vs. CHALLASITARAMA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. He filed O. S No. 35 of 1954 in the Subordinate Judges Court Guntur to recover a sum of Rs. 7,288-8-0 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 2-3-1951 executed by the 1st defendants 1 to 3, in favour of plaintiffs transferor, Kusam Kotireddi for Rs. 6,256-4-0. Defendants 1 to 3 are members of a Joint Hindu trading family. One Khasimreddi is the deceased father of the 2nd defendant and the husband of the 3rd defendant. He borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000 under a promissory note, Ex. A.23 dated 22-4-1949 from Kusum Kotireddi. Khasimreddi died soon after and there after when Kussam Kottireddi intended to file a suit on the basis of Ex. A. 23, the 1st defendant who is the brother of Khasimreddi executed the suit promissory note Ex. A.24 dated 2-3-51 for Rs. 6,256-4-0. The payee transferred the suit promissory note in plaintiffs favour on 22-2-54 as per the endorsement, Ex. A. 25. The plaintiff alleged in theplaint that he is an endorse for the collection. He sought a decree against defendants 2 and 3 also on the allegation that the debt originally incurred under Ex. A. 23 by Kasimreddi for family necessity. The 1st defendant denied the material allegations in the plaint and put the plaintiff to strict proof of the borrowing and endorsement of the suit promissory note. He also contended that the borrowing was not for the purposes of the family trade. Defendants 2 and 3 while adopting the contention of the 1st defendants further pleaded that the suit promissory note was not supported by consideration and that the endorsement was not true and valid. The trail court decreed the suit against the 1st defendant who executed the suit promissory note, but dismissed it against defendants 2 and 3, who were not the executants on the ground that the plaintiff could not get a decree against them on the suit promissory note as the plaintiff is only an endorsee and what was transferred to him was only the amount due under the promissory note and not the debt which was originally incurred. Hence the plaintiff preferred the present appeal contending that the suit should have been decreed against the family properties of the defendants 2 and 3 as well.

(2.) The appeal was first heard by our learned brother Srinivasachari, J. Before him, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appelant on a decision of this Court in C. Purnachandra Rao v. K. Mallikharjuna Rao, 1960-2 Andh WR 32: (AIR 1961 Andh Pra 247). That decision was given by Bhimasankaram and Srinivasechari JJ. But the whole question was fully argued before Srinivasechari J. again in this case and as he felt that certain observations of Bhimasankaram, J. in the said decision require reconsideration in view of the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Maruthamuthu Naicker v. Kadir Badsha Rowther, ILR (1938) Mad LJ 568: (AIR 1938 Mad 377) (FB) and also the decision in vira Raghavulu Naidu v. Dhara Chinna Rajalingam, 1939-2 Mad LJ 531: (AIR 1939 Mad 846) which is the decision of Pandrang Row and Abdur Rahman JJ., our learned brother directed the appeal to be posted before a Bench of two Judges. Hence it is posted before us for hearing.

(3.) The plaintiff, as stated above is an endorse of the suit promissory note and the original payee is Kottireddi. The endorsement states that the suit promissory note was transferred to the plaintiff as an endorsee is only the right to collect the amount of principal and interest due under the promissory note. There is no mention in this endorsement of the debt originally incurred by the defendantsfamily and the debt originally incurred was not transferred to the plaintiff. Hence the question arises whether the plaintiff can sue to recover the debt originally incurred by the defendants family and obtain a decree against the shares of defendants 2 and 3 in their family properties also. This question has been finally decided by the Full Bench of the High Court of Madras in ILR 1938 Mad 568 : (AIR 1938 Mad 377) (FB). There it has been held that: